The Chain of Gynocentric Dependent Origination! From Prenatal to Post-Natal Gynocentric Conditioning: Sociobiological, Neurocognitive, Emotional Research-based and Evolutionary Refutation of Patriarchy and the Gender Paradigm!
Throughout the late 1970s, several single-factor explanations for male violence toward women were offered. These included sociobiology (Daly, Wilson, & Weghorst, 1982), psychiatric disorders (Faulk, 1974), and patriarchal conspiracy theories (Dobash & Dobash, 1979; Yllo, 1988). Sociobiological explanations were based on the false premise that the prime motive of men is to maximize their contribution to the gene pool (Daly & Wilson, 1988). By extension, male rage over sexual threat was viewed by socio-biologists as having "survival value" (Wilson, 1975). In making this line of arguments, feminist researchers show their logical as well as philosophical fallacy and an internal contradiction. This feminist assumption is based on the view that emotions including anger have either served a positive or functional purpose in evolution helping us survive. It is (a false) Darwinian perspective one suggesting that destructive emotions remain in the repertoire of the human heart as a trade-off in the evolutionary quest for survival. However, if male rage ends in such disasters, so from that point of view, how would feminists regard death? Is there, from an evolutionary survival standpoint, some death benefit? The point is that death is something that nobody aspires to, but the very fact that we were born means death is unavoidable. Yet birth has its benefit - we have to use it well. Anger like other emotions is rooted in ignorance and is like a death in that it is part of our mind, part of our life, part of our human not male or female nature. However, within the realm of emotions, some like anger is destructive and some are positive. Death, as well as anger, is the contrary case to the evolutionary assertion that since we have emotions, again, anger, for instance, must necessarily serve us well, having value for survival. Especially, destructive emotions, being rooted in ignorance, not only must be replaced with wisdom but are part as aforesaid from human not male or female nature and thus it shows that violence isn't rooted in patriarchal and social but psychological and mental realms (the mind) and specifically the destructive and to wholesome ones.
This line of feminist argumentation is absurd and I used death here as equating with anger in the context of this example to make that absurdity clear. If, anger leads to violent outcome including abuse and death, then against the feminist fallacy and claims, it logically proves that it contradicts male incentives, may they be survival, maximizing their contribution to the gene pool as the primary motive of men and by extension dealing with sexual threats with rage giving them supposedly survival value. Even if we accept the theory that the main incentives are to maximize the gene pool, it isn't hence survival precedes the maximization, without it, expansion of genes isn't possible, so even then, the answer couldn't be rage or anger but wisdom. In a wider sense, human survival doesn't depend on ignorance and anger but wisdom and compassion. An infant, wouldn't have survived if he'd had an angry parent; he or she would've survived with parental love, compassion, and wisdom despite the fact, that the parents could abandon them. So, from sociobiological as well as evolutionary psychology, the feminist argumentation is a classic incorrect inference rooted in ignorance. If feminists believe anger serves men well because of evolution, they must believe rage serves them too. And if they believe rage serves them too, they must conclude the same about the human cruelty it causes. And if they believe in human cruelty as serving humanity and human survival, then what about mass murder, genocide, and so on? And if following that feminist fallacy, then that sequence could have ended with the question about the evolutionary usefulness of death. All that to make the point that simply because we have a fact of life, it does not ipso facto make it utilitarian-a point argued similarly by thinkers such as Stephen Jay Gould, who says not all traits produced by evolution are adaptive especially in a personal and social context. And in that, all this feminist pseudo argument falls apart.
Before continuing, here it is a good suggestion to discuss the nature of the mind regarding emotions especially the afflictive mental states. So, the next question might be: Are these negative emotions inherent in the basic nature of the mind or not? Although we've touched it already, I want to further discuss it and thus for the sake of the discourse also will ask if it is inherent then is it male inherent and if not why isn't it patriarchal conditioning. To answer this, we need to first distinguish different levels of consciousness. According to Buddhist psychology and in harmony with afflictive neuroscience, there are three levels of consciousness: gross, subtle, and very subtle. ''At the gross level, we have all the kinds of emotions. The gross level corresponds to the functioning of the brain and the interaction of the body with its environment. The subtle level corresponds to the notion of the 'I' and to the introspective faculty with which the mind examines its nature. It is also the mind-stream that carries on tendencies and habitual patterns. "The very subtle level is the most fundamental aspect of consciousness, the mere fact that there is a cognitive faculty rather than not. It is sheer consciousness or awareness, without a particular object upon which consciousness is focused. Of course, we generally do not perceive consciousness in such a way; this takes contemplative training. "When we say various levels of consciousness, it's not like three streams running in parallel-it's more like the ocean with its different depths. Emotions concern the gross and the subtle level but do not affect the most subtle one. They could be compared to waves on the surface of the ocean while the fundamental nature of the mind corresponds to the ocean's depth. "The very subtle level is sometimes referred to as 'luminous,' but when we speak of the luminous aspect of mind, it does not mean that something is glowing somewhere. The adjective 'luminous' refers simply to the basic faculty of being aware, without any coloration from mental constructs or emotions.
"The next step is to determine whether it is possible to free oneself entirely from destructive emotions. This is possible only if negative emotions are not inherent in the ultimate nature of the mind. If negative emotions, like hatred, were inherent in the most subtle aspect of the mind, they would be present at all times. We should be able to look at the depth of consciousness and find on this level hatred, craving, jealousy, pride, and so on. "Yet just our ordinary experience tells us these negative emotions are intermittent. And contemplatives tell us that as they go deeper toward realizing the fundamental aspects of consciousness, they do not find negative emotions in the luminous continuum at a very subtle level. It is rather a state that is free from all destructive emotions and negativity. "Even though the vast majority of people experience negative emotions at various times, that does not mean that such emotions are inherent like mind. To give an example, when a hundred pieces of gold lie in a dusty place, all of them might be covered with dust, but that does not change the nature of gold itself. The belief, based on contemplative experiences, is that destructive emotions are not embedded in the basic nature of consciousness. Rather, they arise depending on circumstances and various habits and tendencies that express themselves from the outer core of consciousness. "This opens the possibility of working with those ephemeral emotions and the tendencies that breed them. If destructive emotions were inherent in the mind, there would be no point in trying to gain freedom from them. It would be like washing a piece of charcoal, which can never become white. To recognize the possibility of being free is the starting point of the path of inner transformation. One can drive away from the clouds and find that, behind them, the sun has always been there and the sky has always been clear.
Anyway, to consider whether those destructive emotions are part of the basic nature of the mind, we need to examine them. Take anger, for example. A strong burst of anger seems irresistible, very compelling. We feel almost powerless not to feel angry; it is as if one has no choice but to experience it. This is because we don't look at the nature of anger itself What is anger? When you look from the distance at a large summer cloud, it seems so massive that one could sit on it. Yet if one goes into it, there is nothing to grasp, nothing but steam and wind. At the same time, it obscures the sun, so it affects. "So, with anger. One classical approach in Buddhist psychology is for the meditator to look straight into the anger and ask: 'Is anger like an army commander, like a burning fire, like a heavy stone? Does it carry a weapon in its hand? Is it somewhere we can find, in the chest, the heart, the head? Does it have any shape or color?' Of course, one does not expect to find someone thrusting a spear into one's stomach! Yet that's how we conceive of anger, as something very strong and compelling. "But the experiment will show that the more you look at anger, the more it disappears beneath one's very eyes, like the frost melting under the morning sun. When one genuinely looks at it, it suddenly loses its strength. "One discovers as well that anger was not what one had originally thought. It is a collection of different events. There is, for instance, an aspect of clarity, of brilliance, that is at the very core of anger and is not yet malevolent. Indeed, at the very source of destructive emotions, there is something that is not yet harmful. "Thus," Matthieu Ricard explains, "the negative qualities of emotions are not even intrinsic to the emotions themselves. It is the grasping associated with one's tendencies that leads to a chain reaction in which the initial thought develops into anger, hatred, and malevolence. If anger itself is not solid, it means anger is not a property that belongs to the fundamental nature of the mind. This, of course, shows that from the psycho–cognitive nature of the mind, anger isn't intrinsic to men but it also shows that it can't be patriarchal conditioning as it arises at the most basic level in disconnection with patriarchal indoctrination. This is what I want to explore in the next paragraphs in more detail.
Paul Eckman is a world-famous researcher in the field of emotion science. Relying on Paul Eckman's insights, it seems there a big difference between feminist myths and reality once you look closer. Drawing from Paul's report especially, a couple of factors stand out. First, when anger arises it biases our perception and cognition, and there is a refractory period during the anger when you don't even have access to your innate wisdom. Similarly, in Buddhist psychology, on which a wide and pervasive fracture of modern cognitive-behavioral psychology relies, anger is by definition an afflictive mental state that derives from delusion and always distorts one's cognition of reality If there is something like anger that does not arise out of delusion and does not distort one's view of reality, then we would not call it anger. Men (and women) who act violently actually act as standing as opposed to their evolutionary incentive and mission in life once consciousness and mind are clouded by ignorance, attachment, and aversion. Thus, further examining the cognitive process beginning with delusion, attachment, and aversion, there is a positive attitude regarding things we like and a negative aversion for those we dislike. If we desire to avoid a situation or a person we dislike, and we cannot do so, there is excitement in us an urge to destroy, harm, fight, etc. This has nothing to do with patriarchy but it's a basic dynamic in the human stream of consciousness and behavior. That, not the patriarchy, is what triggers those reactions in interpersonal and intimate partner violence in a small percentage of men and women who naturally and instinctively by the virtue of intuition lack the tools of anger control and conflict management. This assessment is consistent and supported by three types of research which clearly and explicitly show that the overwhelming majority of men do not hold attitudes supporting IPV but rather chivalric where they refuse to hit a bettering and physically abusive wife (Simon et al., 2001), that only 2.5% of a representative sample of North American men believed it was acceptable to hit one’s wife “to keep her inline” (Simon and colleagues (2001) and that fewer than 10% of men condoned hitting the wife/girlfriends even as retaliation for the woman’s violence –clear evidence of the gynocentric code of chivalry, not patriarchy (Simon and colleagues (2001)
What we have described above exhibit is even a more nuanced human situation and is, of course, even more, complicated in terms of the mental and cognitive processes, as sometimes a certain aspect of an object attracts us, whereas another aspect repels us, and if so, under certain conditions what is lovable will turn out to be repulsive. This nuanced situation, once a man or a woman, isn't naturally in the possession of coping skills for anger and conflict management, might influence and further escalate an argument and heated situations. The kind of emotional ambivalence that exists between parents and children, wife and a husband, girlfriend and a boyfriend, is a case in point. Then there are things that we consciously like but unconsciously dislike. In the ethical-psychological analysis of emotions that we find in Buddhist psychology which stands as the basis of modern mindfulness-based cognitive behavioral therapy, there are several concepts as cognitive processes used to connote the existence and expression of anger: there is hate, aversion, there is ill-will and there is anger itself. Accordingly, hatred is also related to the states such as envy, jealousy) and feelings of inferiority as well as conceit. Thus, hate, or more correctly said, is the aversion that is one of the basic roots of immoral action, along with greed and delusion. Sometimes in a particular situation, all the roots of immoral action may be excited: a person is longing to obtain object X, but A stands in his way. Thus, greed for X is followed by hatred for A, and the desire for X is in turn nourished by the root delusion. The expression of hatred can take various forms, by way of thought wishing the person dies) by way of harsh words, and by way of aggressive behavior.
This is, unfortunately, a universal human condition, both in women and men thus the feminist conspiracy theories as formulated by Dobash and Dobash, namely that wife assault is seen to be a systematic form of domination and social control of women by men; that all men can potentially use violence as a powerful means of subordinating women; that men as a class benefit from how women's lives are restricted because of their fear of violence; that wife abuse reinforces women's dependence and enables all men to exert authority and control; that the reality of domination at the societal level is the most crucial factor contributing to, and maintaining, wife abuse at the individual level (we've seen it's exactly vice versa and have nothing to do with the social level); in other words, that the maintenance of patriarchy and patriarchal institutions is the main contributor to wife assault; that wife assault is mainly "normal" violence committed, not by madmen who are unlike other men, but by men who believe that patriarchy is their right, that marriage gives them unrestricted control over their wife, and that violence is an acceptable means of establishing this control, constitutes not only an ecological but also sociobiological as well as evolutionary psychological fallacy as formulated by the pair. This fallacy itself, that on a personal level is rooted in ignorance and delusion as well as in ill-will, aversion, hate, and attachments, have exceeded this initial level and ended in institutional misandry and violence against men. And, of course, our cognitive mental evaluation, have explained not only the gender symmetry in violence but also other types of DV and IPV especially among lesbians which is higher than the one in heterosexual relationships.
Coming back now to Eckman's research, so I wish to continue his exploration of anger. "Because it is such a troublesome emotion, writes Eckman, the emotion during which we are most likely to hurt others, I believe that violence is not built into anger - not a necessary or biologically required consequence". Here Eckman refutes another feminist fallacy that there is an embedded and inevitably connection between anger and its violent expression at the biological and from there on the social level. Eckman, also maintains, though, he doesn't have evidence for it, that what is built into the anger response is the impulse to remove the obstacle that is upsetting us. That does not necessarily require violence." However, although Eckman correctly recognizes as we have explained above that there's no link and connection between evolutionary value for survival and anger, there we must conclude as standing opposed to Eckman who claims that if "violence or harming others is not the purpose or goal of anger from the perspective of the evolutionary theme-that, rather, the purpose of anger is to stop whatever is interfering than that's not anger but something else – for instance, wisdom or clarity – and there's no need to label it as anger
Furthermore, we must remember, as explained above and as a continuation of that discussion that emotion occurs generally when an object is considered as something attractive or repulsive. There is a felt tendency to impel people towards suitable objects and impelling them to move away from unsuitable or harmful objects. The individual also perceives and judges the situation concerning himself as attractive or repulsive. While a person feels attraction for agreeable material shape, he feels repugnance) for disagreeable material shapes. An individual thus possessed of like and dislike approaches pleasure-giving objects and avoids painful objects. Pleasant feelings and painful feelings are affective reactions to sensations. When we make a judgment in terms of hedonic tone of these affective reactions, there are excited in us certain dispositions to possess the object (greed), to remove it (aversion), to flee from it (fear), to get obsessed and worried over it (anxiety), and so on. Our attitudes which have been formed in the past influence our present reactions to oncoming stimuli, and these attitudes are often rooted in dynamic personality traits, again having nothing to do with patriarchal oppression or indoctrination and they are a universal human expression not related to one gender.
In other words, aversion, anger, and hatred are states of mind that strike against experience, pushing it away, rejecting what is presented at the moment. They do not come from without. This insight is a reversal of the ordinary way we perceive life. Usually, we believe external problems attack us. Things are wrong and people misbehave, causing our hatred and suffering to arise. But however painful our experiences may be, they are just painful experiences until we add the response of aversion or hatred. Only then does suffering arise. If we react with hatred and aversion, these qualities become habitual. Like a distorted autoimmune response, our misguided reaction of hatred does not protect us; rather, it becomes the cause of our continued unhappiness. As we have seen, Freud and his followers believed aggressive instincts to be primary. Culture’s “commandment to love one’s neighbor as oneself is justified by the fact that nothing else runs so strongly counter to original human nature as this.” Later, in the aftermath of World War II, socio-biologists such as Konrad Lorenz and Robert Ardrey hypothesized that our species, like our predecessor apes and many other animals, had necessary and inevitable instincts of territoriality and aggression.
Today, evolutionary biology and neuroscience are carefully charting the genetic function and neural mechanisms of aggression. Aversion and anger almost always arise as a direct reaction to a threatening or painful situation. If they are not understood they grow into hatred. As we have seen, pain and loss are undeniable parts of human life. When our experience is one of pain, embarrassment, shame, of not knowing, our habit is to draw back in aversion or strike out in anger, to blame or run away. Like pain, fear is the other common predecessor to anger and hate. When fear arises, anger and aversion function as strategies to help us feel safe. We feel insecure and vulnerable, but we cover this fear and vulnerability with anger and aggression. We do this at work, in marriage, on the road, in politics. A fearful situation turns into anger. When we examine anger and aversion with awareness, there is a radical shift of identity. These states are not who we are. They are conditioned and impersonal, and they do not belong to us.
These attitudes are not always the result of deliberations at a conscious level but emerge on deep-rooted proclivities referred to as latent or dormant tendencies which are often accumulated in the familial environment as well as in prenatal conditions. Prenatal memory, also called fetal memory, is important for the development of memory in humans. The theory of prenatal origins is based on empirically observable phenomena and involves parental classic conditioning, postnatal operant conditioning, and the adaptive value of mother-infant bonding. The human fetus can perceive sound and acceleration from gestational week 20. The most salient sounds for the fetus are internal to the mother's body and are associated with vocalization, blood circulation, and digestion. The proto-musical sensitivity of infants may be based on the parental association between the mothers changing physical and emotional state (body-mind interaction) and concomitant changes in both hormone levels in the placental blood and prenatally audible sound movement patterns. Proto-musical aspects of motherese, play, and ritual may have emerged during a multigenerational process of operant conditioning based on the prenatally established association among sound, movement, and emotion.
Many factors can impair fetal memory and its functions, primarily maternal actions. There are multiple techniques available not only to demonstrate the existence of fetal memory but to measure it. Fetal memory is vulnerable to certain diseases so much so that exposure can permanently damage the development of the fetus and even terminate the pregnancy by aborting the fetus. Maternal nutrition and the avoidance of drugs, alcohol, and other substances during all nine months of pregnancy (especially the critical period when the nervous system is developing) are important to the development of the fetus and its memory systems. The use of certain substances can entail long-term permanent effects on the fetus that can carry on throughout its lifespan. There is some evidence that fetal memory may begin within the second trimester after conception. Substantial evidence for fetal memories has been found at around 30 weeks after conception. Fetal memory is important for parental recognition and facilitates the bond between child and parents. One of the most important types of memory is that which stores information contributing to the maternal bond between infant and mother. This form of memory is important for a type of development known as attachment. Fetal-memory is thus critical to the survival of the fetus both prenatally (in the womb) and after birth as an infant.
Once neurulation is complete and has given rise to the nervous system, fetal memory becomes responsible for a variety of tasks. One of its main functions at this point is to control breathing in the fetus. Also noted, was its ability to control eye movement and coordination during all nine months of development. There is evidence that these are practiced in the womb and carried out similarly after birth. Learning a language as an infant also requires fetal memory. It is now known that the mother's voice is heard from inside the womb and that the fetus can differentiate speech sounds, particularly the phonemes (a single segment of sound) in speech. This is evident in the baby when born, showing many signs of early language comprehension. It has also been shown that infants prefer their mother’s native language after being exposed to it in the womb. Evidence also exists that the infant, when born, prefers its mother's smell from having memorized her scent as a fetus. Memory is critical for the recognition process that takes place between the mother and infant through breastfeeding. Breast milk contains contents recognizable by the infant that they were exposed to through amniotic fluid (the fluid that encompasses the fetus and is responsible for its nutrition in the womb) in the fetal stage. Since the baby is so dependent upon the mother, maternal nutrition also plays a large role in the infant developing healthy brain functioning; including memory function, which the infant cannot live without. Thus, fetal memory is critical to the survival and healthy development of the infant before and after birth. Many of these functions are measured through methods such as classical conditioning, habituation, and exposure learning, being the most popular.
Anyway, further down the line, pleasant feelings induce an attachment to pleasant objects, as they rouse latent sensuous greed, painful feelings rouse latent anger and hatred. States like pride, jealousy, elation, etc., can also be explained in terms of similar proclivities (latent tendencies. It is even said that such proclivities as leaning towards pleasurable experience and malevolence are found latent even in an innocent baby boy or girl lying on their back. Thus, those most deep-rooted inclinations are to be already observed in infants refuted the patriarchal indoctrination as at this young age it is impossible to instill newborns with those predispositions. Following Western scientific knowledge, Buddhist psychology expands furthermore on concepts for the cause and mechanism of the arising of anger. The term used for what gives rise to anger is translated as 'mental unhappiness,' but that's not it. It's an abiding sense of dissatisfaction. When you have that dissatisfaction, derived from internal not external experiences, your coping inabilities not patriarchal indoctrination, then you can readily become irritable. You are immediately prone to anger. Buddhist psychology also explains the arising in the mind of a given mental state, such as anger, in terms of both immediate and distant causes. These can include one's physiological state, one's thoughts, emotions, experiences and other hidden influences including what Buddhists see as past experiences stored in the mind as habitual propensities and latent/dormant tendencies.
One of the most critical elements in the research field of emotions which focuses on compassion/lack of compassion, that alongside loving-kindness, compassion, patience, and forgiveness, is an antidote in overcoming anger (and hatred), shows that people without self-compassion usually come from a nuclear family in which mothers were very critical. First, this is perhaps the first and most important empirical evidence of the very fact that our human society is Gynocentric and heavily women-centered, especially in terms of the empathy and compassion gap for boys and men. Moreover, people who come from dysfunctional families and exhibit non-adaptive attachment patterns (Neff & McGeehee, 2010, Wei, Liao, Ku, & Shaffer, 2011) are also related to those who lack self-compassion. Hence, most childhood abuse is related to mothers (about 70 percent of children are abused by their mothers), while boys are the main target or recipients of this form of abuse, these men face devastating consequences in the sense of the compassion gap as grown-up adults whether it is based solely on this fact and even more strongly as a result of the compassion gap in the context of emotional distress, lower self-esteem, alcohol, and drug abuse as well as crime and suicide (Tanaka, Karla, Faglia-Wak and MAP's 2011 research team, Vettese, Dyer, Li & Wekerle, 2011 are the discussing those effect in the context of the lack of self-compassion). Thus, both men and women, who lack the innate ability and coping mechanisms for anger and conflict management, weren't indoctrinated on top of the root delusion, attachments, and aversions, but further mainly by the mothers
Having dealt with anger, we want to expand and pass now to the psychological roots of violence. Here, we must understand and as described anger that it is the individual and his, delusions, his ignorance, his attachments, his cravings and aversions that stand as the root of violence. Individualism, not patriarchy, is therefore institutionally consolidated, the root and to be both blamed for the creation as well as the consequences of violence. Hence, much anger and violence stem from the ego's felt need to defend not only what is seen to be one's own or to grasp personal gain but also the need to be right, to preserve and protect one's views (attachment to thoughts). The need to be right and attachments to thoughts are the ego's false attempt of soothing fears of survival in that delusion makes people grasp the impermanent and make it permanent and it's rooted in ignorance which misperceives the impermanent, selfless, empty, and impermanent nature of reality. Thus, anger and violence are also rooted in the fearful misperception of reality causing anxiety. In such a situation where another person's view or attitude to life will be misrepresented and misinterpreted as dangerous to survival mostly through unconscious latent and dormant tendencies and while lacking a toolkit for anger and conflict management, men and women might develop anger and escalate it to violence once unable to soothe their fears and anxiety. It is a false attempt within one own mind to control an uncontrollable experience based on fear while further by anxiety controlling the other too and not a power or control attempt stemming from patriarchy expanding this to women. Thus, both the gender as well as the patriarchal paradigm is epistemologically based on the same ignorance and misperception of the true nature of reality.
However, it is also the need that sees the gain of others as a threat to personal happiness. However, this too is none other than the fault and failure to see the truth of selflessness and the interdependence of all phenomena. It is the failure that leads to the urge to be violent. Furthermore, I already mentioned latent tendencies which are partly existing due to prenatal conditioning as well as through maternal indoctrination in infancy. We can suggest that the human person also becomes the victim of obsessive actions, thoughts, and inclinations which leads to anger and violence. Thus, beginning in prenatal conditioning, continuing by maternal condition as well as familial circumstances and other a wholesome or less wholesome, and angrier or less angry, temperament may arise and be built and it is a certain emotional style, like being a shy or a moody person-it's a trait. Anger is also emotion; a person with an irritable temperament is constantly prone to being angry. It also holds that the drift towards violence within one person or society, sometimes driven by communal or cultural obsession but mostly personal or familial due to the dynamic described above, may become an inevitable causal process unless the inner mechanism is discovered and it can lead to anger, wrath, and violence. Related to this is the danger and motivating force of rigid, inflexible, and speculative views and thoughts (that I mentioned above) as one of the roots of violence. The causes of violence are, therefore, at the most basic level the proliferation of concepts and ideas flowing from the perceptual process when governed by delusion, ignorance, attachment, and aversion. This doesn’t mean there can't be a correlation between internal and external circumstances. It does mean that a) the most basic, direct, and important root is the psychological one; b) given circumstance and conditions it is the most pervasive and thus influential one.
The existence of the behavioral organization in the mammalian fetus implies that many of the motor, sensory, and learning abilities that are typically associated with the behavior of mature mammals have their origins in the prenatal period. This means that the conditioning process takes its root via the maternal – fetus route and realm. However, the behavioral literature is replete with examples of experimental design, reasoning, and conclusions that convey the implicit assumption that the prenatal period is irrelevant to the postnatal expression, function, or development of behavior. Efforts to replace simplistic dichotomies in the study of behavior, such as the everlasting distinction between nature and nurture, with a more sophisticated perspective of behavioral epigenesis (Oyama, 1985) seem continually thwarted by the widespread lack of appreciation for the early development of behavior. For no portion of the life history of an animal is this lack of appreciation more evident than for the prenatal period. (p. 97). Smotherman and Robinson (1990) explain the dynamic: viewing fetal behavior under (…) naturalistic conditions has revealed that the fetus is more than a passive passenger during gestation, it is an active organism responsive to changes within its intrauterine environment.
Certain features of the fetal environment can facilitate the expression of organized behavior, other features constrain or inhibit behavioral production. Further, the behavior expressed by the fetus can have functional consequences. (…) These facts imply that the behavior of the fetus is inextricably connected to the environment in which it has developed, to the environment in which it currently exists, and to the succession of predictable environments that will follow in the course of its life history. (p. 97) Furthermore, as regarding human prenatal perception, then we must bear in mind that all human sensory systems begin to function before birth (Hepper, 1992). The main adaptive value of prenatal perception is its role in infant-maternal bonding (Roth & Sullivan, 2006; Smotherman & Robinson, 1990): the more the infant “knows” about the mother before birth, the better it can adjust its postnatal behavior to optimize maternal care. This is practically the beginning of what can be called the chain of gynocentric dependent origination and conditioning. Thus, perception gynocentric perception and worldview are inducted into both male and female infants by the mother which through postnatal conditioning strengthens this inclination and is the link of biological and evolutionary gynocentrism.
The cochlea and vestibular system in the inner ear begin to function near the middle of the human gestation period. Bibas et al. (2007) and Hepper & Shahidullah (1994) observed that cochlear functioning begins as early as 20 weeks gestational age (i.e., 18 weeks after conception); Pujol and Lavigne-Rebillard (1995) estimated that functioning begins at 18 weeks gestational age. During gestation, the frequency response of the cochlea gradually expands from a narrow range near 300 Hz to almost the full adult range (Hepper & Shahidullah, 1994). The neurocognitive processing of sound and movement improves with myelinization at around week 28 (Morre et al., 1995; Moore et al., 1996). Thus, sound and movement are perceived for some 12-20 weeks preceding a typical birth at 40 weeks. 2 The sound that is transmitted to the fetal cochlea via the amniotic fluid and the middle ear is impeded in various ways (Abrams et al., 1995), but the wealth and diversity of published evidence on prenatal responses to sound and transnational auditory learning (Moon & Fifer, 2000) suggest that none of these impediments is serious. First, the amniotic fluid filters out (muffles) higher frequencies, so that pure tones or partials above about 500 Hz are significantly attenuated and almost nothing is audible above about 2000 Hz.
Second, the critical bandwidth of the developing cochlea is broader than that of the mature cochlea (cf. Hepper & Shahidullah, 1994; Lavigne-Rebillard & Pujol, 1986). Third, the mucous that fills the fetal middle ear causes some attenuation (Abrams et al., 1995; Keith, 1975). While the combination of these three hindrances significantly reduces intrauterine speech intelligibility (Smith et al., 2003), the fetus can nevertheless distinguish among the phonemes of maternal speech to some extent (Decasper et al., 1994). Based on these various sources, we may safely assume that the fetus can discriminate up to about five harmonics in the mother’s voice near fo = 200 Hz. Fetal movements begin during the first trimester and develop throughout pregnancy. Robinson & Kleven (2005) demonstrated that the fetus can adjust its movements in response to external stimuli and constraints, suggesting that it has a sense of the relative position of parts of the body (proprioception). Furthermore, Classical conditioning can be demonstrated in the rat fetus after just four pairings of chemosensory stimuli, even when many of the brain structures involved in sensory processing and learning in older animals are physiologically immature (Smotherman & Robinson, 1991). Thus, there is no reason to suppose that the human fetus in the third trimester might be incapable of classical conditioning. It is more plausible to suppose that both human and non-human fetuses are finely tuned to a specialized intrauterine ontogenetic niche (West & King, 1987); they sense it and respond to it, and in that sense interact with it (Oppenheim, 1982; Smotherman & Robinson, 1990). “Fetal learning thus is not a curiosity, but an active area of research in the fields of developmental psychobiology, neurobiology, and child development” (Robinson & Smotherman, 1995, p. 297). 3
Classical conditioning also allows patterns of sound and movement to be associated with emotions. The process might be best understood within the ecological paradigms of perceptual learning (E. J. Gibson & Pick, 2000) and direct perception (J. J. Gibson, 1979). Like any other organism, the fetus constantly interacts with its environment. In the course of this interaction, which involves all functioning sensory and motor systems, the internal microstructure of the brain is in a constant state of flux, as the strength of synaptic connections changes according to Hebb’s law: the brain “resonates” to the environment. When the brain changes in such a way that the organism’s future response to environmental situations changes, we may say that the organism has learned. Learning often has a limited duration, that is, the future effect of a present event can be overridden by later events. The duration of learning is increased if a given situation happens repeatedly, which allows the organism to learn the perceptual invariants corresponding to the event or object in question and, on that basis, to subsequently recognize the event or object. These invariants include temporal regularities of the kind “stimulus A is generally followed by stimulus B” to which the theory of classical conditioning refers.
Also, not to forget is the fact that everyone experiences emotional changes in a typical day. When the emotional state of a pregnant woman changes, some of the hormonal correlates of that change reach the fetus via the umbilical blood. The hormones involved in the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis (van den Bergh, 1992) pass, or are transported across, two semipermeable interfaces that separate the maternal circulation from the fetal brain: the placental barrier (Burrow, 1997; Morreale de Escobar et al., 1988) and the blood-brain barrier (Rapoport, 1976; Saunders et al., 2000); the latter begins to form toward the end of the first trimester in humans (Johanson, 1989). In that way, changes in the mother’s physical and emotional state can affect observable fetal behaviors such as heart rate, heart rate variability, body movements, and breathing movements (van den Bergh, 1992).
Transplacental transfer can take seconds, minutes, or hours (Bajoria et al., 1996, 1998). The number of involved hormones is high (D. G. Porter et al., 1982) and their various physiological and psychological functions and interactions are not well understood (Burrow, 1997). In an evolutionary approach, hormonal communication between mother and fetus also involves fetal-maternal conflict (Trivers, 1974), in which the fetus (via the placenta) manipulates maternal investment by secreting hormones (Haig, 1996). Maternal emotional communication may also occur behaviourally. The internal patterns of sound and movement to which the fetus is repeatedly exposed — those produced by the mother’s voice, breath, heart, footfalls, stomach, and body movements — depend on inconsistent ways on her physical and emotional state (Mastropieri and Turkewitz, 1999). Because the transmission of sound is limited only by its speed, sound patterns can transmit information about the mother’s state more quickly than hormones. From prenatal to postnatal conditioning, the chain of gynocentric dependent origination can be described as following:
Ignorance, as understood in the process of neuroscience and psycho-cognitive conditioning, is used in a very different way than it is used in popular culture. It’s not an insult or an absence of knowledge, it doesn’t mean we’re stupid but it incorporated basic misperception of reality, cognitive dissonance, and bias, something Einstein has called an optical delusion of consciousness. While basic ignorance is not related to gynocentric perception, in evolutionary terms gynocentrism adds here another crucial layer as to the sustainment of the gynocentric culture. This, process, and subsequently ignorance, is operating on the sub- and unconscious level. Thus ignorance, especially the extra added gynocentric level, can be deeply rooted in the consciousness. It is usually very visible to us, and yet it can be exerting its influence in all the ways we think, perceive, and respond. Ignorance is often described as a kind of blindness, of not being conscious in our lives of what is moving us on a moment-to-moment level.
Sometimes it is described as perceiving the unsatisfactory to be satisfactory, or as believing the impermanent to be permanent—this is not an unusual experience. Ignorance is sometimes taking that which is not beautiful to be beautiful, as a cause of attachment, fear, aversion, and anger. Sometimes it is defined as believing in an idea of self to be an enduring and solid entity in our lives when there is no such thing to be found. Or as not seeing things as they are, but seeing life, seeing ourselves, seeing other people through a veil of beliefs, opinions, likes, dislikes, projections, clinging, attachments, et cetera, et cetera. Ignorance flavors what kind of speech, thoughts, or actions we engage in. Hence, all of the processes are prenatal and unconscious, it refutes the notion of patriarchal conditioning which emerges as a subsequent fallacy in itself stemming from the original gynocentric delusion.
It is here, at this most basic level of unconscious ignorance, that the evolutionary dynamics as well as the psycho-cognitive structure of human consciousness, takes its course and also transforms itself into another process that we call gynonormativity which serves the purpose of indoctrinating the female worldview, observation as well as interpretation of reality in boys and girls from prenatal, over the postnatal stages and into adulthood. By adopting the female worldview, observation as well as interpretation, it aims at internalizing gynocentrism and its clandestine and hidden nature at the root of human identity, especially in men. The adaptation of the gynocentric sets of values at the root of male and female identity operates, first and foremost, at the unconscious level of the human mind, psyche, and mentality and additionally has the purpose of controlling formal male-dominated power structures through the female informal structures of power.
Therefore, men from all walks of life, no matter the religious affiliation, race, ethnicity, nationality, status, or political mindset, left or right, are all part of gynocentric upbringing and gynonormative conditioning. Gynonormative goals are achieved partly also through chivalric sets of values that are indoctrinated in men as described above. While in the traditional gynocentric society the rules of chivalry were applied to each man as in the servitude of his wife and other women in his life (like daughter, mother, etc), gynonormativity, as well as chivalry, have been applied to all men and from them to all women. It was achieved by institutionalizing gynonormativity and chivalry through the legal and other official institutions of the state and that now have replaced the once-living husband of blood and flesh through an amorphous collective husband which is the state. Therefore, in the third stage of gynocentrism that is feminism, chivalric and gynonormative dynamics have been applied to and through the state back to all men. Thus, in this authoritarian stage of gynonormativity, all institutions of the state are mobilized to the cause of gynocentrism and the feminist cause.
Additionally to the state also all other sectors of society like media, academy, etc, are affected by gynonormativity and serve the same purpose. Operating at the unconscious level and within the clandestine frames of informal as well as formal dynamics at the conscious and external level through many myths and taboos, is what makes gynocentric and gynonormative dynamics so powerful and hard to overcome. To sum it up: gynonormativity is a derivative of gynocentrism as the evolutionary and biological conditioning in all primates and not only human society. It aims at giving priority to women's needs, points of view, and desires and on behalf of all other parts of society while elevating their status about everyone. Seen as disposable, men in this society have the aim at serving women through chivalry and male servitude while at the same time gynonormative dynamics are used to create a delusion of male dominance and selling men this phantasy. Gynonormativity also regulates the hierarchical power structures within the culture enabling women to control formal structures of power through the informal power structures on both, political, social, cultural, and most importantly the interpersonal level. In particular, men are indoctrinated to adopt the gynocentric female system of values as a component of their authentic personality, but to maintain it, this social engineering and cultural conditioning are widened and applied to women and girls too.
Ignorance, as well as the subsequent gynonormative process, is the causal condition or climate which allows for the arising of certain kinds of volitional impulses or formations arising in and during the prenatal as well as postal gynocentric conditioning continuing into adulthood. In a general sense, we’re all formations; we’re all volitional impulses. And we are all indoctrinated with gynocentric ideals, perceptions, and worldviews. Everything that is born and created out of conditions is a formation. Dependent origination gets a little more specific: it talks about intentional actions as body formations, intentional speech as both body and mind formations, and thoughts or states of mind as mental formations. As such it is describing the organization or shaping of our thinking process following accumulated gynocentric habits, preferences, opinions. Gynocentric volitional impulses lend a certain fuel to the spinning of the gynocentric women-centered wheel of society.
Within a given gynocentric cycle, they interact and form more and more of themselves. There is also a constant interaction of the inner and outer, through which the whole cycle keeps getting perpetuated. Some of the formations arise spontaneously at the moment, and some are ways of seeing or ways of reacting that have been built up throughout our whole life. Due to their repetitive use, these gynocentric volitional impulses, as well as formations, become somewhat locked or invested in our personality structures and stay close to the surface as more automatic or habitual ways of response. However, it is important to understand that each volitional impulse and formation is new in every moment. They arise through contact, through certain kinds of stimulation. We tend to think of them as habitual or ever-present because of how we grasp them as something solid. But in our encounter with them in the present moment, they are not presented to us as history or as something that is there forever.
Those unconscious and gynocentric volitional formations and impulses condition the arising of gynocentric consciousness. This gynocentric consciousness is used in the sense of the awareness of all the sensations that enter through the sense doors when they deal with women-centered reality. So, there is the consciousness of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, and thinking. At any given time, one or the other of these sense door consciousnesses dominates our experience. Consciousness also describes the basic climate of the mind at any particular moment—the way it is shaped or flavored. So, any particular moment might be aversive or dull or greedy, for example, though without interest or intention some of these flavorings of consciousness may not be noticed. Consciousness is also interactive: not only is it shaped by formations and by ignorance, but it is also shaping everything going on around us—regardless of whether we pay attention to it or not.
Name and Form
Consciousness gives rise to name and form, which is sometimes translated as mind and body, but that’s a little too simplistic. Form, or body, describes not only our own body but all other bodies and all forms of materiality. Name, or mind, describes the feelings, the perceptions, the intentions, the contact, and the kind of attention we give to what appears in the field of our awareness. So, the name describes the whole movement of the mind in all its components in relationship to materiality. This is how it works: there’s an arising of form, and then name creates concepts or attitudes about it. The kind of relationship we have with any material form, including our own body, is shaped by what’s going on in the mind, whether we are consciously aware of it or not, and as we have explained this all is colored but what can be described as epistemological gynocentrism which lets us perceive reality as inherently gynocentric.
So, the shape of the mind and our body, this name, and form, is always changing, always moving, never staying the same but always reflecting its gynocentric nature in this process of change. Consciousness, body, and mind are always interdependent, with consciousness leading the body and the mind to function in a certain way. If consciousness has arisen flavored by anger or by greed, by depression, by anxiety—or whatever—it provides the conditions for the body and mind to organize itself in a particular way while still being a part of the gynocentric matrix. All of the events that have taken place so far in these links of gynocentric ignorance, volitional formations, consciousness, and mind/body—these are the most important steps in the generation of not only the biological evolutionary gynocentrism but is the foundation, the cornerstone, of cultural gynocentrism and feminism on the conscious level of reality. These volitional impulses—what is happening in the body and the mind—are the generation of the gynocentric matrix.
We go on from body and mind to the sense doors or the sense spheres, for it is the psychophysical organism that provides us the capacity to see, hear, smell, taste, touch, and think. One of the deeper understandings we can have is to acknowledge that the mind is one of the sense-spheres. The previously and unconsciously accumulated gynocentric thoughts, images, archetypes, and perceptions that arise and pass away in the mind are not so essentially different from the sounds or bodily sensations that come and go in the realm of the senses. We may sometimes have the impression that the mind is constant or always “on duty,” but a little bit of a deeper exploration of what happens within the mind shatters that perception.
When the sense doors are functioning, contact arises. Contact is this meeting between the sense door and the sense information—I ring the bell, hearing arises. You smell something cooking in the kitchen, the smell arises through the nose sense door, I have a thought, perception and a feeling, the mind registers it. The arising always involves the coming together of the sense door, the sense object, and consciousness—the three elements together constitute contact. With this previously and unconsciously accumulated gynocentric contact the female-centered world arises, and with the cessation of contact there is the cessation of the world while instantly a knew gynocentric reality will appear. This statement acknowledges the extent to which we create our world of experience by selectively highlighting the data of the senses which is an embedded part not only of the epistemological but also classic cultural and feminist gynocentrism which cherry-picks reality and only concentrates on female needs. Each moment of gynocentric contact involves isolating a female-centered impression out of the vast stream of male and female impressions that are present for us in every moment as we sit here. Contact is what happens when something jumps out of that reach background and becomes the female-centered and gynocentric foreground. When we pay attention to it, there’s a meeting of the sense object and consciousness and the sense door. That is contact.
Contact is the foundation or the condition for the arising of feeling. In speaking about feeling here we are not speaking about the more complex emotions such as anger or jealousy or fear or anxiety that arise from this gynocentric reality, not the patriarchal one, as I have already explained it but the very fundamental level of feeling impact that is the basis not only of all emotions but of all mental states and responses. We are speaking about the pleasant feeling that arises in connection with what is coming through any of the sense doors, or the unpleasant feeling, or those feelings that are neither pleasant nor unpleasant. This doesn’t mean they are “neutral,” in the sense of a kind of nothingness. Some feelings are certainly there, but they don’t make a strong enough impression to evoke a pleasant or painful feeling response in us. Actually. the impressions and sensations and experiences that are neither pleasant nor unpleasant are some of the more interesting data received by our system. This is of course, as all the above stages, not only inherent to gynocentrism but as a universal experience, whereas we concentrate in our discourse on the gynocentric element or aspect of it. It is important to acknowledge that the links of contact, sense doors, and feelings that we have been talking about are neither wholesome nor unwholesome in and of themselves; but they have come to the catalyst of what happens next. The sense doors, the feelings, and the contact are the forerunners of how we react or respond and how we begin to weave a personal story out of events or impressions that all of us experience at all times. Therefore contact, feeling, and sense doors are pretty important places to pay attention to.
Where does craving come from? From our relationship to feeling; the feeling is the condition for craving. This craving is sometimes translated as “unquenchable thirst,” or a kind of appetite that can never be satisfied. Craving begins to be that movement of desire to seek out and sustain the pleasurable contacts with sense objects and to avoid the unpleasant or to make them end. It’s the craving of having and getting, the craving to be or to become someone or something, and the craving to get rid of or to make something end. Thus, anger and subsequently aggression and violence, are rooted in attachments and aversion, towards painful experiences, they are, therefore, not of a patriarchal origin but rather a combination of universal and gynocentric origin on top of that. Pleasant feelings or impressions are hijacked by the underlying tendency for craving, and unpleasant feelings are hijacked by aversion. And when a feeling is felt as neither pleasant nor unpleasant, it is also hijacked, in this case by the deluded tendency to dismiss it from our consciousness and say it doesn’t matter.
Our sense of self finds it very hard to have an identity with any impression or sensation which is neither pleasant nor unpleasant. It is at the point where craving arises in response to pleasant or unpleasant feelings that our responses have come very complexly, and we run into a world of struggle. When we crave something, we in a way delegate authority to an object or an experience or a person, and at the same time, we are depriving ourselves of that authority. As a result, our sense of well-being, our sense of contentment or freedom, comes to be dependent upon what we get or don’t get. You all know that kind of restlessness of appetite— there’s never enough; just one more thing is needed; one more experience, one more mind state, one more object, one more emotion, and then I’ll be happy. What we don’t always see through when we are amid ignorance is that the way such promise is projected, externalized, or objectified is something that always leaves us with a sense of frustration. We are dealing here with a very basic hunger, and we allow our world to be organized according to this hunger by projecting the power to please or threaten other things. But the important thing to remember is that craving is also a kind of moment-to-moment experience; it arises and it passes.
Craving and clinging (also called grasping), are very close together. Craving has a certain momentum, a certain one-way direction, and when it becomes intense, it becomes clinging. Now, one way that craving becomes clinging is that very fixed positions are taken; things become good or bad; they become worthy or unworthy; they have come valuable or valueless. Thus, all of this is organized according to a gynocentric set of values and ideals, the world is further systematized by them into friends and enemies, into opponents and allies according to what we are attached to or what we grasp or get hold of. That sense of becoming fixed reinforces and solidifies the values we project onto experience or objects. But it also reinforces the gynocentric and women-centered belief systems and opinions, and the faculty of grasping holds on to images of self. “I am like this.” “I need this.” “I need to get rid of this,” and so on.
And, often, many things in this world are evaluated according to their perceived potential to satisfy our gynocentric desires and predispositions. It is not a patriarchal but an inherently gynocentric system of indoctrination and conditioning. What all this also does is make us additionally very busy fulfilling female needs and desires. Traditionally, clinging is often broken down into four different ways in which we can make ourselves suffer. There is the clinging to sensuality or sense objects. The other side of clinging to sense objects is clinging to views, theories, opinions, beliefs, philosophies—they become part of ourselves. Another form that grasping takes is clinging to certain rules—the belief that if I do this, I get this. Or one says, “This is my path. This is going to take me from here to there.” The last of the forms of clinging Buddha talked about was clinging to the notion of “I am”— the craving to be someone, and the craving not to be someone, dependent on clinging to an idea and an ideal of self. This notion of self is perhaps the most delusionary force in our lives.
Clinging is followed by becoming or arising—the entire process of fixing or positioning the sense of self in a particular state of experience. Subsequently, this is how in the end all-male archetypes are formed, are female-focused, and reflect gynocentric ideals and indoctrination. Any time we think in self-referential terms, “I am,” “I am angry,” “I am loving,” “I am greedy,” ”I know,” “I’m this kind of person” and so on, an entire complex of behavior is generated to serve to crave and cling to the gynocentric matrix. I see something over there that I’ve projected as “This is going to make me happy if serve this woman,” and I organize my behavior, my actions, my attention to find union with this woman. This is the process of becoming— becoming someone or something other than what is.
Birth, the next link in the chain of dependent origination, is the moment of arrival. We think “I think I got it!” “I found it (the union with this image, the woman or role or identity or sensation or object),” “I am now this”—the emergence of a gynocentric identity, a sense of self that rests upon identifying with a state of female-centered experience or mode of conduct, the doer, the thinker, the seer, the knower, the experience, the sufferer—this is what gynocentric birth is. And there is a resulting sense of that birth, of one who enjoys, one who suffers, one who occupies, one who has all the responsibility of that birth.
"Aging and Death (of experience)"
Birth is followed by death or cessation in which there is a sense of loss, change, the passing away of that state of experience. “I used to be happy.” “I used to be successful.” “I was content at the last moment.” And so on. The passing away of that state of experience, the feeling of being deprived or separated from the identity, “I used to be…” is the moment of death. In that moment of death, we sense a loss of good meditation experience, a good emotional experience. We say it’s gone. And associated with that sense is the pain and the grief, the despair of our loss. Thus, again, it's not patriarchy causing those feeling, it's not patriarchal conditioning of men, it's not toxic masculinity, but gynocentrism and its toxic form of on the cultural and social level and feminism. It is important to understand that not women are toxic but cultural gynocentrism and feminism. Furthermore, these different factors interact to create certain kinds of experiences in our lives. What is important to remember is that none of this is predetermined. Just like the climate for snow, the presence of certain of these links is going to allow other experiences to happen. Not that they must happen, or definitely will happen, but they allow for certain experiences to happen. This may sound like bad news in the beginning, but we get to the good news later.
The second truth of dependent origination describes a process that happens every single moment of our lives. But there is a distinction between a process and a path, and it is a critical distinction. One doesn’t want to continue in life just as a spectator, watching the same process happening over and over and over again—a spectator of our gynocentric disasters. Awareness is something a bit more than simply seeing a process take place. In choosing to be aware, we make a leap which is really about an application of a path in our lives, otherwise, mere seeing of the process becomes circular and we continue to circle. The path is what takes us out into a different process. Now, the third truth [the cessation of suffering] is not a value judgment in itself; it is simply a portrayal of how it is possible to step off a sense of being bound to this wheel of suffering or the links of dependent origination. It is significant to remember that it doesn’t have to be anyone's link that we step off or that there is only one place where we can get out of this maze. We can step out of the maze and into something else at any of the links.
To give an example, here how it works in terms of females indoctrinating males towards violence we can observe how male aggression stems female genes" and was confirmed by a study performed by David Skuse. Here, it is common to think that aggression is a male trait and that the gene responsible for its expression originated in the father. A rare genetic disease called Turner Syndrome has led to a surprising discovery. The gene responsible for male aggression is more likely to come from the mother!" The general opinion is that there is something flawed in the male genes. It further assumes that while mothers allow their daughters the social cordiality that characterizes them, at the same time fathers give their sons manifestations of aggression and dominance. Scientific truth is, of course, different. In the nucleus of the human cell, there are 23 pairs of chromosomes. One-half of the pairs a human being receives from the father, and the other half this human being receives from the mother. A single pair of chromosomes is the determinant of the pair. When the pair is XX, it is a female and XY is a male. Therefore, the mother always inherits chromosome X to her offspring, while the father inherits chromosome X and half times Y. In other words, the human father has the exclusive right to determine the offspring. "
Now, let's look at a certain condition that is called the "Turner Syndrome" and will help us to understand this dynamic. Here, unfortunately, the meiosis process rarely occurs. Instead of merging two X chromosomes originating from mother and father, one of them is already at a critical stage. The results are not necessarily fatal, and the embryo usually develops until birth, but as we know, chromosome X carries genes that have a decisive influence on the human being's personality and behavior. When the developing embryo carries chromosome X cells, we can expect to have a female, but sometimes a baby has only 45 normal chromosomes instead of 46. This genetic disorder is called Turner Syndrome, in recognition of Henry Turner, who first reported it. However, Turner's syndrome does not only characterize the external appearance of the women who suffer from it. Apart from infertility that results from malformations of the ovaries, many of them exhibit what society ignorantly describes as male-dominated behavior."
As it turned out, Turner's syndrome daughter inherited a single X chromosome from one of her parents. Immediately, researchers thought" that Turner girls "prone to outbursts of anger and aggression" would have inherited the X chromosome from their father. As is customary, our misandrist society falsely and immediately assumes that in such a case the genes expressed in violence would have belonged to the male, and the genes that moderate this behavior belong to the female. However, a British researcher named David Skuse discovered in his research the inverted world order, and with his colleagues deciphered how the tendency to aggression was created by female and not male genes" "Skuse found that at all times when Turner's girls inherited their X chromosome, they used to riot and express violence, and also had difficulties adapting to a social environment compared to their other Turner peers". As standing opposed to those, the Turner's girls who inherited their father's X chromosome, showed more sensitivity and tolerance even more than the ordinary daughters. In other words, the genes expressed in aggression are originating from the mother. The genes expressed intolerance and sensitivity come from the father. "
Probably this gene war started in females. The natural selection of females favored belligerent males who could protect their families. A female X chromosome that expressed aggression in these subjects was preferred over that which did not contain the genes for violence. However, the hereditary burden that came from the mother was quite heavy, as her daughters also showed great aggression and violence, and instead of taking care of their offspring and nurture them, they risked bloody fights with their other female peers. Therefore, the male X chromosomes were found to contain genes that mitigate this aggression. Therefore, fathers whose daughters were peacefully living with their other peers were successful with raising their grandchildren and their inheritance has gradually gained a growing share of the population of posterity until the girls regained their peaceful and pleasurable status. So, the more the male chromosome X succeeded in its mission to mitigate female violence, the more the female X chromosome became more and more violent and more and more turbulent thus no one can save us from it anymore". In conclusion: the genetic study here by David Skuse supports the studies in the field of primatology. I have written extensively about it in the past, especially the research of Arsenau which has shown that females in the wild are the ones that indoctrinate and condition males to violence. This research has shown how sociologically as well as anthropologically female Vervet monkeys condition males to violence whether it is directly or what's called violence by Proxy. And it destroys the myth and fallacy of patriarchal violence or patriarchy in general.