Puh what a rant.

I actually just want to correct you on one thing and I am also Not sure what you really meant.

But we dont get 100% of our cells from our mothers. We get the mitochondria from our mothers. The cells that enclose those mitochondria are perfectly 50/50 after fertilisation.

Honestly, this argument comes across to me as a horrible mangling of different pop-sci concepts to construct a victimology. There's good evidence of the mechanism by which stress and trauma induce epigenetic changes in organisms. (Selective methylization regulating expression of genes.) There's some evidence of epigenetic changes due to physiological trauma passed down through germ cells. But it's a huge leap to ascribe mtDNA damage to psychological experiences.

The mitochondria have a degenerate genome, a tiny amount of DNA with (looking it up) 37 genes to support the processing of energy into ATP to power the cell. It is susceptible to epigenetic changes, which leads pretty directly to a number of metabolic disorders, but I can't find any evidence that those changes result from life experiences of an animal. The idea that mtDNA has accumulated generations of damage from sexist trauma beggars logic, too, because there's just not a lot of room to collect damage, and that damage leads to health problems fairly directly. If one got every cell of life from one's mother, in turn, she got it from her mother, and so on all the way back to the first eukaryotic life. All of those generations of trauma, how are we even still living?

Furthermore, the assertion that "men created the patriarchy" ignores actual history and context. One simply cannot ascribe a singular intent to a class comprising billions of individuals across time and space. At best, one could describe patriarchy as an emergent phenomena of societies and cultures. About half of the individuals in those societies and cultures were women, so you'd have to conclude that women helped create patriarchy, unless you deny their agency or intelligence.

A woman is absolutely a threat to another human. Any animal that size is. That you think women are harmlessly is ironically, misogyny.

Yes all people are potentially dangerous.

But the biomechanics in adults are very different and need to be recognised. Statistically the physical intimidation is mostly one way when you account for sexual dimorphism in height, weight, reach, muscle mass etc. There are always exceptions but women live in a very different threat environment. That isn't misogyny.

If people tend to hate what they fear and mysogyny is literally hatred of women like what the fuck? Perhaps some men are terrified of emotional harm. I can understand that but perhaps they would be better off with some therapy or a bit of self awareness.

This is a perfect description of the male and female meta. It is why males are stronger. Not to protect or lead, but to control through fear and violence.

It's a priviledge men developed a higher sensitivity to oxytocin to compensate for a lower expression of the stuff. Enabling men to give a damn about someone other than their desire to dominate. Men can love their partner, their family, friends, their pets because of this.

Chimps ain't that lucky, and males would rather watch an orphan die from neglect (and eat it) than take care of it. The males are known to kill females for showing assertive behaviour.

Same goes for prolactin in the brain, that makes humans more monogamous and increases a desire to protect something you care about. It never was a male feature before, but it became one in humans. It even peaks after the baby is born and the father is exposed to seeing his baby. Over time, similar adaptations to the brains of pregnant women, are seen in father's brains. Which is amazing.

Men ain't that bad, but old habits die hard. Men are more aggressive, stronger, more impulsive and less afraid of consequences on average compared to women. Those who were better at avoiding male aggression, lived longer. Hence why estrogens play a role in stimulating brain development in areas essential to risk assesment, consequence sensitivity, resistance to suicide, thinking ahead, planning, reading emotions (of themselves and others), learning and memory, reducing own aggression, communication and impulse control. Giving women an edge in academical performance despite there not being a statistical difference in intelligence. (Imagine if men had these boons instead...)

While all those obvious "big scary male" traits in men makes them seem like a bigger threat, women are well equipped and know how to dominate and eliminate people indirectly.