Original post: 2018:— 2025 edited
“Women create life.”
This misconception is a symptom “born” of a cultural conflation that breeds unhealthy ego, mistranslation.
- Cultural sympathy
- possible overcompensation
- generally a complimentary exaggeration stemming from the sole fact that carriage is uncomfortable & painful and birth is hell.
- And is primarily what that breeds is this …”credit” system where women are entitled to be credited with “creating” life because of her physical labor, which is predictable because it’s brutal. And understandable because it’s better than trivializing the act, especially since despite women being designed for it, it can still kill them.
But the presumption that they're creating anything is inaccurate, presumptuous and egotistical .
And the fact that this was ever a question shows the danger of innocent semantics, some people actually believe that slogan or expression as fact instead of just digging into the simple question:
“Women create life. But do they?"
"What is she actively, actually doing before the delivery? Which she also does NOT decide when it happens. So what exactly is she doing beside being a passive party until suddenly active on demand? In an automatic process that has nothing to do with her will, what exactly is she doing?”
- Carrying life? Yes, non-debatable.
- She’s an Important factor in delivering life? OBVIOUSLY.
- But she herself “creating” ? Hardly.
The expression “women create life” & it’s variations are a social sympathy badge with good intentions.
"Creator of life” is a romanticized semantic pedestal with no grounds in reality.
There’s no cultural "interpretations" here, there’s giving due respect and then there’s a pedestal for women (as usual)—
- there's overstating one's importance (with GOOD intentions, but ultimately conflating one thing for another) and there's accurately applying respect that’s due without pushing borderline deification.
Deification: Which is what this is really about— inflated self-importance, hence the tone of the original question in the first place, as well as it’s oblivious stance on an existential inaccuracy.
And lastly, the expression is a genuine indicator of misunderstanding biology. We focus on the outcome: “where the baby came from physically” & not how passive her role was in the entire thing.
Just like when a woman assaults a man, we ignore her role in the escalation and we only focus on the outcome which is she was hit back.
We ignore the process, and skip the outcome.
- Otherwise, lock a woman in a room. And ask her to “create life”/ a child.
- Is she going to "create" life then? If not, then there you go. There’s your creator.
- She’s not creating anything. The heartbeat, the electrical emissions, the developing little organs, the bones, the siphoning nutrients from the mother, the movement begins in her body, because she incubates life.
- "INCUBATOR": Which is not a lesser role than a creator, it’s simply more accurate, transparent & less delusional and obnoxious.
Part 1# “Creator of Life fallacy”
To create is to bring into being, generate aka ‘produce by oneself’. Several microorganisms can pull it off, others not so small, many sea life can asexually reproduce.
They are the creators of their young, spawn, clones, successors. A godlike feat.
And last i checked, women weren’t asexually reproductive; If they were, then they would be indeed: Creating another person, for it would be without outside help.
At that point I’d surmise women were damn near demi-god status, to “create life” by yourself naturally is a serious feat.
But humans, being a dimorphic species: It takes two to create life, not one. Because male & female are two halves of an incomplete “true” human being.
Fact is, sperm itself is not even something that she produces, it’s the production of the man. Her part being more painfully hellish doesn’t give her charity credit points over his role.
(His body created the sperm that allows her to even conceive in the first place, she has no place in the process if he doesn’t plant the seed.)
- The maturation process of a baby, is not a conscious decision on her part, as is sperm production not conscious for men. Hell even the compulsion to pursue women is not conscious for many men.
- The spermatozoa in junction with other gametes, is simply doing what it’s programmed to do: Survive
Which is why when
a woman doesn’t want the baby, she can’t choose to “Not to create life” or halt the maturation process on her own volition, which is basically a god.
- For she’s not in control, she is not creating anything (by herself). That’s why she needs further outside help or interference, to abort, forcefully terminate, smother, snip snip, cut up, vacuum, whatever aka assassinate the life to be/not to be.
This “creator” narrative would entail women consciously code, design & specify the integrity molecules/ or genes of the baby: eye color, allergy, strengths, etc. Aka CREATING the child’s makeup with active work, like men do when they “create” cities, bridges, roads, etc.
Part 2# “Woman, the Incubator”
Simply germinating his seed with 50% of her DNA, is not creation of her power. For the seed “of life” still originated inside him, not her.
It is joint creation, duo, two:
- Again, the seed, something a man provided in the first place, is not her creating life, that is incubating said seed.
- Her eggs providing a home for the sperm. So she’s a housing unit, a “genetic refuge”, carrier, a bunker.
- "bun in the oven" is actually not unironic, the woman is literally an oven that's giving refuge to a genetic big bang.
- Finally: The Woman is simply nurturing what’s already there, that's not all she's doing but that's the simplification. No different from a chicken sitting on an egg, incubation.
- Without the warmth, the baby doesn’t grow, it will freeze and die.
Women are incubators of life, not creators of life.
I can see how that slogan would be so so flattering to one’s ego especially since men carry in most sections of society, and childbirth is the one thing men can’t do so women can in a way always claim it & then be called “creator of life”?
I get it. Makes us feel good, but it’s incorrect. .
To make a city is a team effort.
- Johnny, & Billy starts a project.
- Johnny, & Billy worked on the project. Johnny provided half the means to complete it.
- Billy finished the construction project, Johnny twisted his ankle.
- Because Billy labored more than Johnny in the end, did Billy “CREATE” the end product as a whole or was the outcome a team effort in the first place?
Part 3# “Jealousy fallacy”
Men are no more jealous of that, than women are jealous of the fact that the majority of the:
Electronic privileges produced by majorly males, (including the vibrator) —— women & men enjoy advanced maintenance of advanced society that men die to maintain.
- Scientific advancements pioneered, invented that everyone enjoy (women contribute to *namely biology & social sciences*, mostly men carrying tho on average but shifts are happening)
- First world securities & Protections that both men & women enjoy (women contribute, mostly men carrying tho)
- Less office comfy, dangerous jobs that even the most driven women don’t tread BY CHOICE, not even as a dare: Are occupied by men (Women do not contribute equitably, men are carrying the team, dying doing it, but not called “creators” of anything. Why isn’t that a topic more often? STEM & forcing girls to want to want to be into "the science" is more of an imperative of empowerment, we have so much to say about women leaving men behind (*A blatant lie) but we won't talk about what women aren't doing?) Smells like a narrative, not a report of observable reality.
- As a result, so are the occupational death tolls occupied by men, in fact, every death statistic short of birth fatality & breast cancer tbh.
- The Malls built—— That Women, as i see it, enjoy on mass.
(Women work too, contribute) but again, majorly Men work, carry— the more hazardous fields in droves because somebody has to do it. But despite keeping the Country’s lights on, Sewage cleaned, Monoliths built & maintained year round:
The Men don’t hold it over women’s heads, and they are justified to do so with all the fallacious & infantile "First woman to--" or "Midwestern Woman breaks barriers by--- doing her job at the bare minimum", and we constantly see this crap from America to Japan. MEN are 100% within their rights to be resentment in that regard but they don't, they just get it done.
Men aren’t enabled by articles & academia to invent womansults anything & everything every other year to make life a living hell for half of the species, because peace is too boring a concept to entertain for the western world.
Success is an allergy to the privileged world that forgot what real collapse or needing men feels like. So? We think we can afford to play topsy turvy.
And that's working out like a charm.
SO—
the one thing that some women (not all, cause I’ve never heard any woman In my tribe use the expression, not to my recent memory) like to use as a bragging right, is something that they couldn’t do by themselves nor have any control over. Thus it's not true.
The one thing that they have to claim, is a lie, at least how they perceive it is misinformed.
It’s ironic, it’s redundant, it’s inaccurate, it’s silly, but I get it — is the point.
🛡️Sidebar: Clarifying the reality of this check is not to diminish the very real physical tax women labor to carry & deliver little ones.
This is solely about dispelling a very western, a very privileged delusional self-importance a lot of women (as usual) are allowed to carry in their minds without challenge most of their lives.
- And this delusion only exists in her heads because it’s planted there by outlets, family members repeating talking-points and societal mouth pieces.
- Like women are so useless in civilization, the best feat we can own for ourselves is a lie anyway. And that's not true, there's plenty women that have done shit.
(Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer Doudna--- these two are my fav example, because they're a modern example that nobody talks about, but we keep seeing mediocre women in headlines, even Japan of all places, why? For doing the bare minimum as a woman. So being a mediocre is breaking barriers but the pioneers get buried?--- So how's that for empowerment?)
Meanwhile the actual creators are unacknowledged as blue collar NPC’s, the one’s that make your civilizational advanced experience even possible.♂️ Thanks men.
So curb the pre-emptive defense mechanisms, this isn’t a declaration of war on the ladies, it’s an overdue reality check. 🛡️
While some women (not enough) rightfully take pride in childbirth, delivering new life.
Many women do so for the wrong reasons, and casually repeat this term “create”/”creator”/”creating”.
Which is nothing short of fascinating.
At the end of the day, it’s not a contest.
A kind replier in 2018 brought up a point that
“Last time I checked, the sperm needs to be met by an egg, which the woman produces on a monthly basis, before it can become a fetus. Sperm by itself cannot create human life. So, in the equation of sperm-egg-incubation, it’s 2/3 a female function, 1/3 male..”
Here’s the issue with ”2/3 vs 1/3“: Ratios
Inversely, logically, the egg needs to met by the sperm to be of any use just as sperm needs to be met by an egg to then ALLOW the woman to form a zygote to fetus, automatically btw; she’s not actively creating a fetus.
And thus with that clarification— Women & Men are too similar/parallel in reproductive function to pit against in yet another silly "Us vs Them" contest, because that seems to be westerners main diet: strife, competition, & contention.
It’s no wonder your sex relations are amazing & birthrates are through the roof ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The testicles are responsible for producing & recycling sperm when expelled. As are the ovaries produce & replace eggs during ovulation. Common theme is a “Cycle”:
- Production & recycling (Egg/Sperm) 1/3 (For men it’s manual, for women it’s automatic. Both are important to the baby making)
- The Sperm needs an egg to be of use, inversely The Egg needs sperm to be of use 2/3 (Both are important.) As I said, it’s inverse. Both are mechanically useless without the other.
The differentiating factors are as such:
- The woman birthing the actual child (Final Phase, Omega)
- (3/3) But oddly enough the man expels sperm (potential person) in an eerie parallel fashion to birth, and if the first birthing process of the spermlings doesn’t happen, the process can’t begin for her or the would be child, thus she has no place in the process until she is activated. (First Phase, Alpha)
- He is The Beginning, she is The End of the process, can’t have a pregnancy without a catalyst, can’t have a baby without carriage of seed.
So by that logic he's a housing unit for the seedlings as she is a housing unit for the subject.
And again, for the last time: if her urethral pathway do not receive the sperm in the first place, egg doesn’t receive sperm; the sperm are useless, and will expire. Eggs are filtered out on a monthly basis thus dying in their own right, useless, serving no purpose. (4/4)
- Point being: (Both are important) & not interchangeable but they are indeed parallel, scarily so.
For the function of joint creation of life. Joint. Two makes 1+ and even if it was 2/3 to 1/3, is that supposed to be an unsubtle powerplay?
Like in general, If I'm the person who asserted that comment: what exactly am I getting at by making it about ratio?
The woman having the the brunt of the situation doesn't change the fact that she is useless in the process unless he essentially grants her that role.
And if he's the one that made the roof she sleeps under, the labor equation balances itself out. And nature tends to do whether humans like it or not.
Why is it always a fight? (I'm calling myself out *10 yrs ago* in that regard too. It's interesting reading how I used formulate points way back.)
I repeat, if men had this resentment/ transactional attitude regarding civilization itself instead of the traditional/meritocracy system; nothing would've ever gotten done; it’s just ugliness and division mindset.
Very common in privilege world that thinks it can afford to play gender war mongering every other day with people’s minds, it’s disgusting.
It’s not a contest, because it’s literally not a contest.
You’re on the same team, make a mental note of that, instead of discarding that reality to make or fight a battle that doesn’t exist.
2025 edit:
- the threshold of life
- Life giver
- deliverer of life
- carriage of life
- & very very generously: "Life bringer”
those are romanticized, respectful and accurate forms of address for mothers without giving them deification honorifics they don’t deserve; otherwise a slogan that logically, biologically and very, very literally makes no sense.
“ life givers", I particularly like that one and “threshold of life” is my #1, stumbled on that in a passing thought in 2023–24, the most accurate. The female genital pathway is traditionally the literal threshold unto life itself.
Some women do die giving birth almost as if giving up their life to deliver the baby.
- Even if she survives, so much of her energy/ including psychologically is expended to transition the baby unto life, the mother in a way is giving life force in a sense (a romanticization, but it's simply an illustration, still makes more sense than "creation").
- Her nutrients were shared with the baby in similar fashion and through “microchimerism” the baby’s conception gives the mother legitimate buffs, like regeneration & some immunities. It’s some cool shit, ngl.
“Microchimerism is the two-way exchange of cells between the mother and the fetus (and back) during pregnancy. These fetal cells can persist in the mother's body for decades, lodging in organs like the heart, brain, and bone marrow.” - ♀️+👶🍼=💪
Which is why I used “ possible overcompensation ” lightly.
I chalk the expression in question to just social charity brownie points, because women on a microscopic level are pretty awesome, like comic book level shit.
Having a baby results in “microchimerism”, even if she chooses to abort it, the fetal cells of the dead ex-child remains.
No, they don’t build cities but Women are plenty cool as is without needing out of proportion semantics or a new cultural self-help slogan to exaggerate what already is borderline science-fiction level abilities that somehow is not getting the highlight it probably should get in woman worship culture.
- So inflate an inaccuracy but overlook actual, factual cool feats of women’s physiology? Gynocentrism is weird lol.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7543167/https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4989712/
TL;DR “Threshold of life” makes more accurate sense than the “creator of life” expression.
The original expression works as meaningless hyperbole romanticism to make women feel good about themselves in a biological ritual that in reality requires no active skill or qualification, just passive availability up to a fixed point.
So while the “creator” narrative is a strictly ‘socially understandable’, yet albeit obnoxious attempt at a compliment stemming from the unfair physical brutality of women’s role in the matter, unfortunately the delivery, implication, “credit” system is also nonsensical social coddling.
In antiquity, people were uneducated, passionately in awe of everything they couldn’t rationalize properly.
Back then people could afford to be ignorant because they had no means to correct themselves, so I’m sure to them childbirth did seem like women were “creating” life in the womb all by themselves somehow; engineering every single detail, unconscious, like deities oblivious to their own power.
To natives, cave people, impressionable people of simpler times, where everything exotic was worth religious reverence. I’m sure that childlike fetishism “creator of life” actually made sense to them once upon a time.
But today? Willful, Classic western societal gyno-ego stroking..which is why you have more boys & girls, than Men and Women.
“Challenge norms, except the one’s that flatter woman.”
It’s only when enough people (ie. the title of the question) apparently take it very seriously or literal enough to form a worldview around it or use it in a sentence with a straight face, at minimum;
Or at worst: let it go to your head? Then we’re beyond hyperbole & innocent flattery and then there’s a problem.
That then leaves the realms of non-existent jealously or possibly women wanting men to be jealous for some reason (2/3 1/3 language, overcompensation / competition, us vs them language) and enters the domain of concern on part of what signals society is pushing in the first place, still pushing that makes people believe romanticism as fact.
And why does your society do, and does it even know why it's doing so to begin with. 🗿
