56

I’m not kidding. I understand if someone is romantically/sexually attracted to men, but why in other contexts does everyone in our society value them over women?? Like as sons and brothers? For example, that boy in the dress in Loudon was defended by his victims parents! as if that psychopath’s future is more valuable than the one he probably ruined for their daughter. I also get that men value each other more. But why do women? Is it the old theory of women trying to gain some influence by the control they exercise over sons? From what I’ve seen in my short life, daughters seem to be far more helpful to families than sons, more successful, and overall more “good” kids. And now that women earn salaries and still tend to do the domestic work, there’s no necessity of men for $$. I think women are just nicer to be around too (probably bc we’ve been socialized to make everyone around us feel good). Anyways, I’m always puzzled. (I don’t hate men. They’re just personally quite irrelevant to me)

I’m not kidding. I understand if someone is romantically/sexually attracted to men, but why in other contexts does everyone in our society value them **over** women?? Like as sons and brothers? For example, that boy in the dress in Loudon was defended by his victims *parents!* as if that psychopath’s future is more valuable than the one he probably ruined for their daughter. I also get that men value each other more. But why do women? Is it the old theory of women trying to gain some influence by the control they exercise over sons? From what I’ve seen in my short life, daughters seem to be far more helpful to families than sons, more successful, and overall more “good” kids. And now that women earn salaries and still tend to do the domestic work, there’s no necessity of men for $$. I think women are just nicer to be around too (probably bc we’ve been socialized to make everyone around us feel good). Anyways, I’m always puzzled. (I don’t hate men. They’re just personally quite irrelevant to me)

99 comments

I mean, all the Abrahamic (notice the gender there?) religions are based on a male god producing a male in his image. Then a shitty sub human female came along, betrayed god, and destroyed mankind.

We are literally a symbol of sin.

Why did this happen? Women are the actual creators of humanity (having the kids), controlling women means you control humanity: who reproduces, who passes down genes.

organized religion is a crock of shit written by men in part to keep women in line and convince us we are second class humans.

Completely. I remember seething when I was young that I couldn't be an alter boy and women couldn't be priests (edit). The sexism was so obvious even at that level.

And it is also used to keep poor people poor.

Same! And I was hella jealous for a minute when they started allowing alter girls at my church after I'd left for college. Then I gave up on male-god religions altogether.

[–] VesperHolic 26 points Edited

Exactly. The Abrahamic religions came as some sort of retaliations for tens of thousands of years were around the world civilisations worshipped the Great Goddess / Great Mother, by virtue of women being seen as divine for their ability to create life. Then some 2000-3000 years ago, men realised they actually had a part to play in procreation, and it seems they overall didn't take too kindly to this... late realisation. Hence the reversal of roles religiously, and God as "the Father".

It's really quite wild to think of when you're aware of this. The whole thing really started as "but I want to give birth too?!".

Are you also reading Who Cooked the Last Supper? I've just been reading about this exact thing.

Except it's not just that men realized they played a role in reproduction. We essentially did a 180 from "babies are made by women and men are superfluous" to "babies come out of dicks and women are just the dead incubator for the dickmagic. Aren't dicks just fucking wonderful?"
And then we got a bunch of myths about gods making babies by jizzing into cabbages and dirt and the back of their own knee.

But this gives me hope because if we can just weed out all the fullgrown morons who still think "men make babies, women just incubate them" we might return to some semblance of sanity. Enough with the cumworship. I can think of fewer substances as grossly overrated as cum in the entire history of everything forever.

I am haha! This book has me put it down every two sentences because I find myself having a "wait. no. this can't be. but then it means that?!..." moment. Followed by me having to reboot my brain. It's so shocking. But like you said, it also gives me hope.

I'm not done reading it but I find the first part especially, "In the Beginning", covers topics that should be mandatory in public schools. But that wouldn't be in the best interest of some powerful people now, would it. For anyone else wanting to read it, a link here.

  • the fullgrown morons who still think "men make babies, women just incubate them" *

But maybe, in countries where any fertilized zygote is considered 'life' that can be 'murdered' (by abortion) from the moment of conception, this principle could be weaponized against men by making masturbatory ejaculation a type of capital murder. Ahahhahaha ha ha ha ahaha.

Oh, that book sounds interesting. Yeah, the whole idea of the little baby being deposited in the woman is gross.

I used to teach biology and the whole idea of the sperm being "more important" is still very current.

I would heavily press that the zygote/baby/us was a heavily divided egg cell that had only the DNA of sperm dumped in. But every organelle, etc was from the egg. I also emphasized that we all had more maternal DNA (due to the mitochondria) and this was how you could actually trace lineage for centuries.

Right, and Eve came from Adam's rib, actually was formed from his abdomen. Coincidence?!

So men are the true creators of life, then they outsourced the dirty work to women (like you know, men are chefs, women are home cooks). And they tied the pain of childbirth with original sin, so we are being punished as women for creating life.

It goes on and on.

And then men dare to talk about how women are equal now in society.

[+] [Deleted] 0 points

Not all Abrahamic religions.

The Quran's version of the garden story has Adam and Eve both partaking equally of the fruit. In no way is Eve specifically blamed.

I don't know about Baha'i, which is technically an Abrahamic religion too.

That is really interesting and refreshing. And no concept of original sin.

But, it does seem that all Abrahamic religions are based on a male god producing a male in their image? (And a woman being secondary from the man).

I quickly googled Baha'i and it says: The religion was initially seen as a sect of Islam because of its belief in the prophethood of Muhammad and in the authenticity and veracity of the Qur’an.[39]

And on a Baha'i site it gave the OT Adam and Eve version, but interprets it allegorically: No; it means what has already been said: Adam is the spirit of Adam, and Eve is His soul; the tree is the human world, and the serpent is that attachment to this world which constitutes sin, and which has infected the descendants of Adam. Christ by His holy breezes saved men from this attachment and freed them from this sin. The sin in Adam is relative to His position

But it is such a new religion I doubt it shaped any sex status quo's

Why do you believe God is 'male'? It's merely the word for God that is male. It just so happens that semitic languages are gendered just like Spanish and French.The word for God just so happens to be male, and then it got carried in English (a non-gendered language), which causes this confusion. For example, the word for water is female, but the word for ocean is male. It's random linguistics. Likewise, table is feminine but sink is masculine.

On another note, in Arabic at least, if the gender of a word cannot be determined, you automatically go to default settings and choose 'huwa', which is the masculine pronoun for 'he', an equivalent to 'it' doesn't really exist.

I think it comes from the Western version of Christianity, where you call God 'Father' or something lol, but the only person we ever call father is Abraham, and even that is rare.

At least somewhat relevant: Shari'a law doesn’t prohibit abortion. The most common specific interpretation in hadith is that abortion should be available on the Woman's request up to 120 days (a position first articulated in the writings of the scholars ibn Hajar and al-Qurtubi).

.

Also important here—Shari'a is only binding on Muslims. There are secular courts and codes of law in most Muslim-majority countries that bind non-Muslims (and also address things that aren't in the Shari'a, including everything having to do with tech and intellectual property and nationality and lots of other legal concepts that didn't exist a thousand years ago). The hard-line autocracies that subject everyone to the same hyper-repressive hard-right laws—e.g., Wahhabi Saudi Arabia, Talibani Afghanistan—under the declared banner of Shari'a are regarded as heretical by the rest of the Muslim world..

Rgd the separate Shari'a jurisprudence, one thing that Americans tend to find shocking is that there are countries where abortion law is markedly more liberal in Shari'a courts than in secular courts. In Malaysia, for instance, the Shari'a courts follow a fatwa stating that abortion should be legal up to the 120-day limit (see above), but secular law outlaws all abortion except in cases of imminent threat to the mother's life or health.

Actually Allah really is non-binary haha. It’s taught that he is neither male nor female (although the masculine pronoun is used)

One of the main teachings of the Baha'i Faith is the equality of women and men, and it absolutely does not believe in the concept of original sin -- in fact, the Baha'i writings state that human beings were created noble. So, yeah, the Garden of Eden is not interpreted in the literal way that Christians traditionally understand it. ETA: And yes, from what I recall, the Adam and Eve story is considered wholly symbolic and allegorical, but there is not only one 'right' interpretation. The one given above is just one potential interpretation, but one is supposed to meditate on the story and consider other meanings as well.

I thought we already agreed the purpose of men was to open tight lids? That's it. Men exist so we can access pickles.

[–] Tq231442 Cervix owner 11 points

🤣 I said it before, but they should just stay home and lift heavy things. They're too emotional for leadership roles.

[–] VestalVirgin 22 points Edited

Brainwashing. It's brainwashing.

I care about the male relatives I like, which I guess is normal (what is not normal is people not caring about their female relatives) but women who are loyal to men outside their own family over women in their own family? It's the result of thousands of years of patriarchal brainwashing. You might call it a variety of Stockholme Syndrome: Women who were loyal to women got hurt all too often in history.

(This is why I have always considered the house elves in Harry Potter a) a metaphor for women and b) wrongfully enslaved by brainwashing. The parallels are striking)

I remember in my anthropology class reading about a tribe in Africa that had a ways of keeping male aggression in check. They purposefully did not praise men who brought back meat from a hunt so as not to inflate their egos, which I thought was interesting. They certainly acknowledged and appreciated their contribution but did no more than that. Sometimes tribes would banish men when their aggression got too out of control because they ended up bringing down the fitness of the entire group. Too bad we can't do that these days but then again, we no longer live in tribes where we could easily see the consequences of our actions on others and it was much easier to keep everyone's behavior in check.

I remember learning about this too. I think if a man was getting to haughty, they would also start the practice of "insulting the meat", complaining it was too tough, and if the hunter was better skilled, he would have killed it in such a way to make it more tender or something.

I think it's very wise to recognize that men's egos ruin everything, and to have cultural practices that keep them in check.

Men are physically stronger than women, and they use their strength to command attention. A peaceful society usually has men who are willing to fight to defend that peace. A violent society has men whose aggression is unchecked and ruled by his emotions rather than an external sense of "justice".

It's the sheer fact that men, when they become bad, are capable of so much more destruction - they command consideration lest they become a threat.

I also think that a lot of people resent women for caring so much about their own children to the exclusion of other things in their life. They see that viewpoint as genetically selfish. They see women as unworthy of investing time in, because they might become pregnant and leave whatever work to go raise their kids.

It's all perceptions that aren't necessarily rooted in reality. For instance, I think mothers care MORE about their broader society, because they want their kids to have a good life. I think that even men who think they are acting violently for the "greater good" are usually driven by emotional drives instead of moral ones.

That really defies all logic. If women don't care about their own offspring few others will. Just look at children whose mothers died early. How many foster- and adoption horror stories are out there. Mothers still are children's primary defense against trauma and even they can't be around 24/7. I suppose the act of having children can be considered selfish, but that applies to men as well, but raising them is not.

[–] homosuperior 18 points Edited

The vast, vast majority of women are heterosexual.

In my experience - considering who I’ve met in my life - the majority of heterosexual women defend men and regard men’s needs, desires and lives as higher / better than women.

The vast majority of men are also heterosexual and that doesn't seem to get in the way of them being painfully apathetic when it comes to our existence.

Yet heterosexual men have no problem treating women like dirt.

It's about power. We value those who have it over us, regardless of how they attained said power. The powerful can protect you from other powerful people. Perks might dropped by accident if you stick around powerful people lon g enough. It'll only cost you your time, energy, money, dignity and your first-born, but you can something in return I think.

Not just your firstborn, but all your children, in most cases :/ mothers are often primary enforcers of patriarchy on their children, especially their daughters. Thankfully, that's getting less and less true as time goes on and societies liberalize, but it still happens a lot. The father gets to be the absent parent, the "fun" parent, the ruler of the family, and/or the terrorist threatening them into compliance, whereas the mother often has to enforce his will or society's will.

I don't like the statement that the Loudon rapist's victims' lives are ruined, although I don't think you meant like they are dirty ruined, just psychologically and physically harmed and potentially will have to deal with that for life. I hope so much that they are able to overcome that though and move on.

I have a little boy and I am about to give birth to a daughter. I have to say, I was really happy to learn both of their sexes, but with daughter it was a bit of a comfort and relief to know she is a girl. I am trying my damnedest to raise them both without gender expectations, but mom can only do so much, and I know that my son will probably move away/never be as close to me as my daughter. That breaks my heart, as I love him so so much. But I am glad with my daughter I will have a better chance at maintaining a close and loving relationship as she grows up and away from me.

I think the preference for boys is definitely a patriarchal thing. When you actually have children, it is very clear that boys are not born any less capable of love and closeness and caring. We socialize it out of them. And we socialize girls to be too self sacrificing. All kids are born knowing to put their own needs first, let me tell you!

I don't think it makes any sense as a feminist to have a preference, as both sexes present an opportunity to raise a grown adult who breaks the patriarchy. We can raise boys into men who do not hate or oppress women, and we can raise girls into women who will not allow themselves to be oppressed. It's a wonderful opportunity and privilege.

I don't like the statement that the Loudon rapist's victims' lives are ruined

I feel like the sort of attitude we have that victims' lives are ruined makes the after effects of sexual assault worse.

Yeah, it just rubs me the wrong way. I don't want to minimize the harm either though, so it's a tough balance.

When you actually have children, it is very clear that boys are not born any less capable of love and closeness and caring. We socialize it out of them.

Oh damn, that’s so sad

I agree. My son is every bit as loving and affectionate as my daughter. Older family members ask if I'm actually going to continue to hug and kiss him whenever he wants it because it'll make him a "sissy." My answer? Yes. I'm find with him being a sissy.

I heard someone saying the radio a while back that we've done a good job of raising our daughters more like our sons, but that the truly brave and progressive thing we need to be doing is to start raising our sons more like our daughters. I think there is a lot of truth to that. It's what we are going to have to do to truly break down the patriarchy.

[–] crodish 🤡🌏 11 points

A male doesn't need to interrupt work flow to take leave for pregnancy, birth, and the subsequent child-related issues that will come up (childcare, PTA, if the kid falls sicks or has events, etc)

A male won't disrupt work flow because he won't be affected by crippling monthly period pains.

My gf's boss (also a woman) specifically looks to hire single females who have no family or relationship commitments because they had to keep switching out staff who weren't taking leave for marriage, a honeymoon, pregnancy check ups or post natal care. It involves a lot of retraining staff and shift covering everytime someone has to take a leave of absence and she just wanted working drones who wouldn't take leaves. She has immediate bias against women candidates who were soon to be married or who have or were considering kids. My gf is considered one of the better workers simply because she's a "single childless female" on top of her excellent work attitude.

It's always tied to our reproductive capabilities. The same way animals get separated into male and female depending on how useful they are (cows, chickens).

[–] BlackCirce 🔮🐖🐖🐖 4 points Edited

Put simply, men have the potential to be productive or wreck a society. Women will be productive whether we want to or not. We don’t pose any threat to society. So men get more prestige in order to motivate them to be useful. People, men and women, hope sucking up to young men and showering them with behavioral freebies and compassion and sex will get them to work and do something to advance society rather than fuck holes in the ground and go on arson sprees.

Women will be productive whether we want to or not.

I don't feel productive in the least. But I have anxiety and depression.

Load more (14 comments)