>>11463733It is a good question initially, that is, why are females represented as cats in most art? To understand this, you have to understand that "human" women are simpler creatures then "human" men. This is because they did not need to complexify and harmonize to the degree men did because men faced more resistance = harsher selection. So great intelligence is unthinkable (no pun intended) in a woman, as a rule. Though it might have exceptions, these exceptions prove the rule. Take a look at the history of science and philosophy, and you will see only male. Take a look at the history of conquerors, and you will see only males. Take a look at the history of artists, and you will see only males "But that is because men are stronger, so women were underrepresented!" Yes, men were stronger, because they faced more resistance, and continued to be stronger because they kept on facing resistance. As for woman being "underrepresented", this is a laughable interpretation that only could have been developed by a resentful female living in a democratized decadent hypercivilization where most men might as well be women because they are facing little resistance, so women can actually have an effect on art, science, and politics, even though they still seldom do
Anyways, out of the three types, conqueror, scientist/philosopher, and artist, which do you think your average woman is closest to? Not the former, because weak and effeminate by definiton, not the middle, because great intelligence requires a complexity that is alien to women, but the latter, the artist, is the most likely, for the artist can be both dumb and weak, but have a totality about them, that is able to idealize any scenario into something beautiful
So the best women will often be those with this idealizing and ability to totalize their life, this fantastic harmonization of their simplicity. And since the cat, too, is this sleek, simple, yet acrobatic and tiny body, we want to draw a cat-woman correlation
