I mean, there are "mothers", but the aspect of "The Mother" is what I am talking about. I am talking about the aspect of nurturing and giving life. But there is no father aspect. Or, at least, the father aspect seems to be split amongst other Gods.
Strangely, I used to wonder about the order of progression in creation from the Christian perspective. In terms of both divinity and mankind, it was Father, Mother, and Son. God, Mary, Jesus. Adam, Eve, the Cain.
But I suppose that can be argued, since Mary is not divine...
But from a scientific perspective, I thinking that the ability to reproduce is primary to life. The ability to survive is secondary. Is the male the attache of the female, or is the female the attache of the male? Older societies worshipped the female more...I think? Males seem engineered to be the fighters, foragers, protectors, and such. Is it gender roles or biology? I mean...scientifically, did life start with both a male or female thing? Likely not. Probably a single asexual being that, at some point, split into male and female beings. And while in some creatures the female is stronger than the male, in humans the male is stronger than the female.
Biology may have done this because of the need. Life always shapes itself around the conditions presented to it. Like water, it usually seeks the path to survival. Because of this, I am now, currently, as I write this, wondering what will become of the Male/Female relationship and does it have any bearing on what we see today. In the past, it was about survival, but on average, survival of the kind we came from is no longer an issue. Therefore the male need not be what he was and the female need not be what she was. I guess biology is slow to change things (maybe it's being careful), but because of the way we live, I wonder how biology will change us in the future. Is the current sexual variance a product of this- without the pressure of survival people just...wander...in sexual identity?
This is contemplative and done more from a place of curiosity so I really don't mean to offend anyone if I have offended someone here. I'm actually wondering. You know how they have Maslow's hierarchy of needs? The underlining thouht seems to be that when basic needs are not met- as in the past where all types of lethalities and insecurities existed- our needs are far more simple. As our basic needs are met, we have the space and resources to develop more complex things from our enviornment and to indulge in complex occupations spanning from complex thoughts and ideas on ourselves and the enviornment. With the pressure of the age of survival, things were as simple as man and woman. But now, when we have so much spare time we can afford to just sit down and binge watch Netflix for hours...we wander.
Again, just guesses, theories, thoughts... I'm always thinking of weird things like this and I don't mean to make it sound serious, it's just me giving my best argument to ideas that pop in me noggin.