Something they didn’t tell us

Not so long ago, I discovered how literal men’s tapping on female energy was. Not just organised, political, social, but essential, constitutive of who they are. This finding takes me even further in the assumption that men’s organised system is a mirror structure that fits their elementary needs and biological constitution.

Mary Daly defines a plug as:

a male fitting used to make an electrical connection by insertion into a receptacle or body and having one or more contact making parts or blades that serve to close a circuit. (In Pure Lust, p. 24)



She then defines men as:

drainers of energy whose plugged-in fittings closed women’s circuits, sapping the flow of gynergetic currents so that these cannot circulate within / among women. (In Pure Lust, p. 24)

Well, it turns out that men are in fact plugged to female energy-makers.

Through mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA).

mtDNA are located in each and every cell and are separate from the nucleus (in which the nuclear DNA is located): there are always several of them in the cell. mtDNA, encoding 37 genes, are responsible for transforming the food given to the cell into energy – in other words, they are the unique source of energy for each cell. They are sometimes called the “engines” of the cell. Reminds you something from biology lessons at school?

What teachers (male lie and bore-ducation) never told us in class is that mtDNA, as opposed to nuclear DNA, is transmitted only by the mother. That is, the DNA is purely female, and so the cell’s unique energy maker / energy transformer is female. It is transmitted generation after generation only by the mother. During conception, the mitochondries of the sperm, (located in the tail, which is what gives it the energy to propel itself) drop off before it enters in the ovula and it is the woman’s mitochondries that then give the energy for both nuclear DNA to fuse and duplicate, and it will thus be her mitochondries that she will transmit to her children, girls and boys alike.

This direct mother-to daughter lineage, with no or very little mutations from one generation to another, is why mtDNA is used in anthropology and biology to track the ancestry of species, as well as the orgins of different human ethnic groups, through female lineage.

Also, because there are several mitochondries in each cell as opposed to only one nucleus, they are usually better conserved, which means that the oldest human females have been dated back to 150,000 years, whereas males have not been traced back further than 50,000 years.

Another amazing fact is that all multicellular beings on earth and some unicellular beings function with mitochondrial DNA (except with in vitro / lab fertilisation where the paternal mitochondria cannot be rejected !!!). Mitochondries are believed to be the ancestors or earliest cell forms on earth before being engulfed by today’s eukaryotic cells.

This also reinforces the claim that by default, all life is female, or that femaleness is the primary and elemental life form. Before men / maleness, there was only femaleness.

Men dependent on female energy to exist? Men visibly don’t like this fact.

I have not quoted any sources here because most provide selective, incomplete or misleading information or are in different languages: I’ve had to put the different pieces together myself. so I can’t be bothered to pile the sources up here but you can find it all on the internet very easily. So yes, in researching on mitochondrial DNA I noticed a pattern in the way the information was presented:

in sciencey / medical pages, the mtDNA was presented as the “engine or energy source of the cell” but they’d omit to say it was exclusively female and transmitted by the mother.

In anthropological sources, they would mention the female fact because this is what enables them to research on human lineage, but they’d omit to say that it represented the cell’s energy source.

If they mentioned both femaleness and energy-facts at the same time, they’d find ways to mitigate it: by saying it is mostly or usually transmitted by the mother (instead of exclusively) or alternatively, by saying it is present in most multicellular species (rather than in all multicellular species / species functioning with eukaryot cells).

Nowhere, of course, is there anything to be found about the significance of this fact on how men relate to women and on life matter in general. Or why this knowledge is generally kept unknown to the wider population, and why we are prevented from making any connections between the different elements.

It was nonetheless surprisingly easy to put two and two together and read through men’s flimsy deceptions and bring the separate pieces together. The information is still out there and available. Maybe because they don’t expect us to THINK about it?

Anyway I couldn’t believe my eyes and ears when I first discovered this fact. I did a happy dance and sang of joy all day.

Now i’d be interested in learning how and when maleness came about, whether it’s tied to the appearance of the eukaryot cell or if it came afterwoods, and whether it was always parasitic in nature or if it evolved that way over time. Or was it something that the mitochondries developed as a reproduction strategy, and it didn’t go as they wanted? When did maleness begin to take the form of penis-into vagina for reproduction? Is maleness inherently oppressive to female life whichever the species, or is it, after all, only specific to human females and males? If so, is it specific to homo sapiens, or does it include all other previous human-cousin species? The research that shows evidence that the Y is a mutation and that is programmed to deteriorate to the point of extinction, seem to fit quite well with the mitochondrial DNA elements. And perhaps it might explain why men are so tied to their erections and ejaculations, because this is how they perpetuate their male species, by glueing male DNA into female bodies. Or maybe this only explains part of it and there is more to the picture. There are lots of theories to explore.

Anyway, mitochondrial DNA was discovered in th 60s, and I vaguely remember learning about it in biology class in high school, when we were studying cell structure and DNA – it was all very boring and of course they hid the most important information from us. But I’m very surprised never to have come accross this knowledge before in feminist articles, books or writings, even with radfems who have discussed biology and genetics in their work (Daly, Solanas, Johnson…). Is it really because none of us knew, or hadn’t had the opportunity to make the connection before? Or is it too taboo to mention?

I can’t wait to discuss this more.