Weird Ongoings With The XY-Chromosome

 

God as a woman: The original Mother Goddess of everything. (The Venus of Laussel is an 18.11-inch-high, limestone bas-relief of a nude woman. She is painted with red ochre & carved into the limestone in the Dordogne region of south-western France. She is approximately 25,000 years old)

.................................................. 

My sole consolation for not knowing about the so-called "Neolithic Y-chromosome bottleneck" is that you simply can't know everything, and I admit this is quite new to me. I'm not even sure, I understand it, but no matter what, it's very, very interesting as it somehow mirrors the sad, but undeniable shift into Patriarchy:  

"The Neolithic Y-chromosome bottleneck was a period about 7,000 to 5,000 years ago when human male genetic diversity sharply declined across Africa, Europe, and Asia, similar to a 1:17 male-to-female ratio of effective reproduction. While the exact cause is debated, a leading hypothesis suggests that the rise of patrilineal clans and frequent warfare between them led to the dominance of a few males who monopolized reproduction, resulting in other males having reduced reproductive success."

"Starting about 7,000 years ago, something weird seems to have happened to men: Over the next two millennia, recent studies suggest, their genetic diversity –specifically, the diversity of their Y chromosomes – collapsed. So extreme was that collapse that it was as if only one man was left to mate for every 17 women." Tian Chen Zeng thinks he has found the answer to the origins of this “Neolithic Y-chromosome bottleneck”. It has something to do with the clan-system as suggested here: "After the onset of farming and herding around 12,000 years ago, societies grew increasingly organized around extended kinship groups, many of them patrilineal clans – a cultural fact with potentially significant biological consequences. The key is how clan members are related to each other. While women may have married into a clan, men in such clans are all related through male ancestors and therefore tend to have the same Y chromosomes. From the point of view of those chromosomes at least, it’s almost as if everyone in a clan has the same father."

To me that looks very logical, but one thing is for sure: We are still in the early learning-process when it comes to ancient history, and there are many questions out there which haven't been answered .... 

I always suggest that people who are interested in how the social structures changed with the uprise of Patriarchy read this book, but there are many ways to achieve more knowledge, and there is much more than what one single book may bring .... 

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tian-Chen-Zeng

 

https://www.ancientpages.com/2018/06/01/puzzling-biological-event-7000-years-ago-something-weird-happened-to-men/?fbclid=IwAR1sPebC2ted3GLPC_aJRFqkWZ5OXiy0T432WJ5K4hcMBGWmgo6vZWzf8Lw

 

https://www.populationmedia.org/the-latest/unmasking-the-patriarchy-its-origins-impact-and-the-path-to-equality 

 

Wikipedia

 

 

 

Rethinking Some Common Human Concerns

One of the most interesting aspects of conversations is that beneath the words that are being uttered there are even more that are not being put into words. Still they are being understood as part of the dialogue. The same goes for silence which may even form part of an ongoing dialogue. However, it takes some empathy to hear what's not being said out loud. Also, it may not have a chance of working with people of a very different cultural background, unless the conversation is about common, basic feelings of e.g. maternal love, fear of death, hunger, a wish for success in life, etc.. When it comes to philosophy it's different, but I, for one, don't doubt that a Church-freak from the Middle Ages would understand a teleevangelist of today even though they wouldn't agree on every detail.

Religion is business, now as then, and it's weird how what Jesus fought in real life somehow has gained access as religious practices into the lives of people of today. But what may be called "The American Christianity" takes the cake when it comes to weirdness. 

 

It's not only weird, it's totally uncanny, but I suppose this transformation comes from the American craving for token of what they call "success", but which only is that up to a certain point. 

The Helping Hand That May Not Belong To A True Helper

 

Yes, all of us may be in need of a helping hand, but the owner of that hand may not act out of the noble feelings, he/she proposes to have. It's a very interesting fact that the "helper" may at the same time be a sort of "oppressor". Sometimes it's necessary to discern between these two - namely in the same individual! - unless the one in need of help wants to allow the "helper" to run his/her own show as an oppressor. 

A beautiful, altruistic situation, but on the other hand, she may have designs upon the cat, whom she intends to grab and keep as a pet or as an object for sale. Not that this looks like a sneaky plan by a child to subdue the animal, but ....

And what about this situation? The man may not have any designs upon the poor puppy, but, on the other hand, he may: Don't Indians eat pets, e.g. cats and dogs like this one? (Actually, I don't know if that's the case, but the suspicion is there).

 

Yes, that's a beautiful moment of true altruism as the child is too young to have designs upon the camera person whom he is offering the sucker. For a hand to be genuinely helpful it must be connected to an innocence like the one we see here. There is nothing "double-faced" in a child like this one which is a guarantee that he is not suffering from something I myself have found in some kinds of helpers: Those who are bordering on something one might see as the "Munchhausen By Proxy"-concept. They are very eager to take over situations that don't need being taken over in a strong wish to appear in a certain manner as "The Good Samaritan". In their own opinion they are conducting not only good, but also necessary acts of kindness, and it may be very difficult to make it clear to them that, yes, some individuals are in need of a helping hand, but what they chose to offer is nothing, but an annoying interference. To help without any ulterior motives is a beautiful act of true kindness, but very often it's mixed up with something not all that beautiful ....

 

Revenge The Silly Way

The president of the USA, Donald Trump exhibiting one of the actions he likes the best, namely executing POWER

Revenge is fascinating, but according to The Bible, it's not permitted. Several Bible-verses speak of how "revenge belongs to God, and not humans". However, being humans we may want to revenging ourselves when we feel wronged, and Donald tRump obviously loves a good, successful revenge against those he sees as his enemies. Actually, he goes a bit further than just revenging himself, as he also expects others to identify with him and his wish for revenge. That's like widening the borders of his personality to encompass everybody else, who thus are expected to feel as one with him. It's utterly narcissistic and not likely to happen in what we might call "real life", but in his delusions and sick imagination it's simply "natural": The way of the world. 

In the first official campaign rally for the 2024 Republican nomination he vowed "retribution", not against those who have made problems for the USA, but for those he feels have wronged him as a person/politician: HIS PERSONAL "ENEMIES". He has been quoted as having said: "I am your warrior, I'm your justice. For those who have been wronged and betrayed, I'm your retribution." (This statement was uttered in Waco, which makes sense as that word is pronounced like "Wacko", which means "Crazy", and crazy it is. However, it's obvious that he has no intentions of stopping his revenge tour, and that he expects everyone to follow and support him).

The Trumpian delusions made me think of someone else who went through with his revenge plans, not by ordering arrests, deportations or sacking people, but by killing them single-handedly: Dr. Anthony Joseph Garcia who set out on a murder spree that cost the lives of four people, two of them totally innocent, but somehow connected to former colleges whom he felt had wronged him: A house maid and an eleven years old boy. They lost their lives, but had done nothing to deserve what he did to them. Some years later he killed a married couple - both of them doctors - who had been colleges of his, and when he was finally arrested the police found a list of other former colleges whom he seems to have planned to kill. The "logic" of this was that he was sure his career had been ruined by his dismissal from a job at a hospital because he seemingly didn't do what he was assigned to do. Also he was seen as flippant, and mean, even evil tempered.  

With Trump it's obvious that he is projecting his hatred out, expecting to see his supporters siding with him in his revenge binge because they also should feel what he does. It's different with someone like e.g. Garcia, who may be just as unpleasant as his colleges have said, but who doesn't expect support: He is the lone avenger, whereas Trump is like a general of an army out to get even for real or presumed slights, that in reality only concerns him and his bloated ego. 

Just like Trump, someone like Anthony Garcia doesn't accept rebuffs of any kinds, and a death sentence sure is a 100% "rebuff": He was convicted on several counts on October 26, 2016, and in 2018 he was sentenced to death, but I feel sure that he still sees himself as the victim, not the criminal who went on a murder spree, also targeting absolutely innocent people, like the boy and the house maid. 

 

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2025-08-24/trump-ran-on-a-promise-of-revenge-hes-making-good-on-it

 

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/revenge

 

https://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/bible-verses-about-revenge/ 

 

Wikipedia

"Drapings": Poem by Else Cederborg

Drapings

I draped my soul in my body
put on rounded breasts and hips
dressed in a waspy waist and silky skin
a pretty mouth with a secret, hungry twin
all of this I put on to robe myself in flames
flames in blood and flesh
burning, ready to sprout seduction

I draped my body in my soul
I sent fire through my entire frame
from toe to scalp it shot upwards
enlightening all that is me
this fire climbed up my spine
dancing as it went, singing holy songs
I dressed it as best I could
watching as it burnt through the fabric
melting my body, blending it with my soul

ALL Rights Reserved©Else Cederborg

"Cut it off, and SERVE ME!"

When God was a woman much was different, and some of it I find hard to understand. For instance, why would many female supreme gods - and many of them are even being called "Fertility goddesses" by modern scholars - want to be served by eunuchs??? Being supreme deities, whom everybody are supposed to bow down to, wouldn't they want to live "fast lives" with a lot of handsome and potent lovers??? Or put another way: Why don't they have male harems??? As far as I know only one (human) Chinese empress, namely WuZetian, did have a male harem, and although she may have been seen as divine, she doesn't come out as an early female goddess, like e.g. Tiamat, Cybele, Asherah, etc.. 

 

There are many of these goddesses, and to guarantee interest in modern times may be difficult. However, being worshipped in non-literary times they rely on good scholarship by modern scholars. In some ways the ancient female gods seem quite mysterious to me, first and foremost because these modern scholars often present them as luscious fertility goddesses. It's as if they can't fathom these age old divinities, except in their role as mothers.

 

The modern scholars keep talking about "sexual orgies", which doesn't fit another aspect of the goddesses: Many of the most important men in their lives are eunuchs, and their castration seems to be part of their allure for the goddesses. They may be in love with a handsome youth, but they are not lusting for every man in the vicinity, like e.g. the male god Zeus is out to seduce every woman who catches his eye. Also, the castrated youths are often their sons as well as their lovers which makes it even more confusing. 

 

 

Cybele's lover and consort, Attis, is often depicted as a young, handsome shepherd, but some see him as both her son and lover. He is supposed to have castrated himself so he was a eunuch who loved and served the supreme god, Cybele. 

 

 

It strikes me as very strange indeed that the consort or lover of the female god doesn't have what is needed to procreate. As I see religions as mirrors of (historically well-known) social settlements, I find it difficult to wrap my brain around something like that. 

 

 

https://www.popsci.com/science/lucy-ancient-human-walking-bipedal

 

https://www.greekmyths-greekmythology.com/myth-aphrodite-adonis/ 

 

https://www.the-tls.com/regular-features/mary-beard-a-dons-life/roman-roosters-and-religious-eunuchs-blog-post-mary-beard 

 

Wikipedia

 

Britannica

Unwanted Female

Catherine Parr (1512-1548) became Henry VIII's 6th and last wife. He was her 3rd husband, and although a faithful and in every aspect a good wife to him, she married him out of duty: The king bid, and she did. Actually, that seems to have been the case with all of her previous husbands, so who is to blame her, when she chose the fourth one out of love? She was infatuated with the brother of the king's third wife, Jane Seymour, the mother of King Edward VI, namely Thomas Seymour. Maybe only because she was the richest widow in England at that time, he also "was very much besotted by her". Anyway, they got married.

 

Thomas Seymour

He always struck me as a typical social climber who got his chance when his sister married the king and gave birth to his sole male heir, the new king. Marrying the king Henry's widow was a step upwards on the steep social ladder, but he can't have respected her very highly, as he started a more or less dangerous flirtation - or maybe more? - with the future Queen Elizabeth I when she moved in to live with them, 14 years old.

A very young Princess Elizabeth

What did Seymour feel for his wife, Catherine, was it love, was it some kind of veneration? To me it doesn't look like that which may be the cause of his not caring for the daughter, they had, and who cost her her life because of childbed fever: Mary Seymour, born August 30, 1548. As it is none of the parents seemed to care for this hapless infant who was to become a burden on those who did. Unfortunately - and strangely - her mother didn't leave her only child anything, only her husband who thus became very affluent. As to the child's father, the by now rich widower, then he was executed for treason and maybe even piracy. His large fortune was forfeited when he was convicted for treason, and he didn't seem to care for his daughter and thus didn't secure her social position before he was executed. Neither her maternal nor paternal uncles wanted to commit themselves to her upbringing, now that her father had left her penniless.

 

 MAYBE Mary Seymour, IF she reached adulthood 

The infant was reluctantly accepted as a foster child by the closest friend of her mother, Catherine Brandon, the widow of Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk. She may have felt it was her duty, but she didn't like it, and it was costly: Being the daughter of a former queen, little Mary had her own household staff, and was to be clothed according to her station, all of it very costly. Had she had some dynastic value it might have been all right, but no, she didn't as she didn't have any dowry. The poor girl was without purpose in a world that had put down marriage as the only female career possibility.

Presumably Mary Seymour as a child 

 

Mary's foster Mom, Catherine Brandon, was complaining about the situation all the time, as she was to pay for Mary, her food, toys, clothes, and her servants. When she took on the obligation of raising the girl she was promised a pension for her, but somehow that was "forgotten". Around 1550 the child even seems to "disappear" from history, but some think she did attain adulthood and even had children of her own. Unfortunately there are no proofs, so those who think she died an infant, aproximately two years old, are very likely right. As to her grave nobody knows where it might be: This child that cost her mother her life "went up into thin air". That's what happens to many or even most of us who are forgotten a generation or two after we die, but somehow it seems so sad that it happened to an orphaned child who was not appreciated by those who ought to have loved and cared for her.

 

 

https://www.hrp.org.uk/hampton-court-palace/history-and-stories/katherine-parr/ 

 

 

Britannica

 

 

Wikipedia