I Don't Think It's Quite Right To Say That "nature Is Intrinsically Patriarchal", Nor That Physical Strength

I don't think it's quite right to say that "nature is intrinsically patriarchal", nor that physical strength equates to dominance. Bonobos are one of the apes most genetically related to humans, and they're known for being matriarchal, or at the very least gender-equal in lower ranks, and their males are larger and stronger than the females, too.

The reason we would return to the violence of the past if we were to strip away modern protections is because patriarchy is already ingrained in our lives and we haven't experienced anything else. If humans were wiped out and they evolved again, they might initially evolve to be female-centered again, as they did the first time. Or they might not, it's impossible to say unless the exact same factors that led to the evolution of humans in the first place were recreated.

I don't think there's anything about society that "simply arises from nature", everything is a product of multiple factors. I don't see why we should accept misogyny as "a natural inclination" when it could simply be considered a consequence of the fact that, when the population growth which resulted from the successful social organisation started endangering the species who suddenly needed more food, men's physical strength was a more useful skill when humans started fighting for resources. Perhaps if there were more resources, or less people, there would have been no need for the aggression brought about by the need for survival and societies would have evolved more peacefully, without the constant wars men are so fond of, and then gender equality would have been just as natural.

Or perhaps the end result would have still been the same because men would have still started wars the moment they found out another settlement had something they didn't and refused to trade. Or perhaps not, because if women were still in charge at that point, they would have been more likely to initiate peaceful trading with other groups and less likely to start conflicts if faced with rejection, and eventually, without the need for survival interfering, human consciousness would have evolved to a point where they didn't feel comfortable attacking other humans for resources they didn't necessarily need. Regardless, I don't think patriarchy (or any kind of oppression, for that matter) is our natural state as animals.

https://vt.tiktok.com/ZS2cJ2a62/

This one of hers is very interesting… hmm, I have a lot of conflicting thoughts …

Radical feminism acknowledges the existence of the 2 sexes, and how the differences between male and female humans created patriarchy.

Men were able to use their physical strength and the advantages of not having to endure/ survive child birth to create systems of oppression.

But at the same time, there were quite a few pre-agricultural revolution societies that were matriarchal, with men hunting large game making them vulnerable and easily lost to the tribes… so hmm.

Nature definitely plays a huge role in patriarchy and how it’s the oldest oppression, and how every culture around the world currently oppresses women: but is it our natural state as animals? I don’t think so… I need read more on the subject tho, it’s very fascinating!

"OP is a terf" is a thought-terminating cliche meant to keep you from questioning the status quo and keep you afraid of being labeled a heretic should you come to your own conclusions about anything.

that alternative ending where the tb stayed on the space station and became a researcher. how much angst do you think it can contain

Do you think there is any meaningful difference in how self-improvement is sold towards men and women?

Self-improvement for women typically means being available to men and practicing artificial femininity.

When a girl lets go of her "tomboy" personality, it's considered self-improvement. In movies, the nerdy or tomboyish girl always transforms into a generic feminine and "well-mannered" (passive) girl who surprises everyone at prom and finally gets the attention of the boys who don't even recognize her. Cinderella. It's sold as self-improvement and maturity. Any of us former "tomboy" girls can attest that these stories are not entirely fictional.

When a lone woman marries and has a child, it's considered self-improvement too. A doctor recently told me, "Don't you want to make something of your life, to have a husband and make a child?" To her, as long as I have not done those two things (give myself up to the patriarchy, essentially), I have not done anything of value. Needless to say, I was incredibly offended. My point is, if I came back to her, pregnant from a boyfriend, she would consider this self-improvement.

When a woman stops crying about her trauma, when she gets up from the dirt and smiles through the pain, it's considered self-improvement. Martyrdom is sold as self-improvement to women.

Self-care is taking a bubble bath, getting your nails done, putting on a new dress, applying some lotion, and journaling. If you're not engaging in artificial femininity, you're an unfeminine slob who doesn't care about herself.

Self-love and self-confidence are expressed through our willingness to wear revealing clothes, post bikini pictures on social medias and engage in one night stands. Otherwise, you're clearly lacking in self-esteem, or you're a prude.

When I was 19, I got really sick and spent the night vomiting. I had an appointment with a social worker the next day. Obviously, I looked like crap. She said I looked like I had given up on life and had no motivation. When I saw her again, I was deep in the pit of suicidal depression and had no self-esteem, which is why I put on a lot of make-up and spent time on my hair, etc. This time, she very cheerfully said, "I can tell that you're doing better and have regained your motivation. Well done, keep it up!"

A woman's self-improvement is in showing that she cares about others more than herself. Self-care and self-love are about pleasing others. The irony.

Still when I was 19, I participated in a workshop for unemployed women, proposed by the local job centre. The first day, they taught us about fashion and which colour suited our skin best, making us stand in front of a mirror one by one. They said that, at the end of the week, we'd get a free haircut, which let us know that the entire week was going to be some relooking experiment. Now I'm gonna take a wild guess and say that the workshop for unemployed men wasn't about posing in front of a mirror and discussing fashion advice. It was supposed to last a week, but I never went back. Self-improvement was, once again, artificial femininity.

I don't know what's promoted as self-improvement to men, but I know it's not artificial femininity, martyrdom and impregnation. So yes, I can guess it's pretty different.

some of you have ‘identities’ that deserve to be invalidated. some of them are unhealthy, actively hurt disenfranchised groups, or have no basis in material reality. the overbearing identity politics that exists on the internet, this whole postmodernist idea of ‘I say it so I am!’ is completely irrelevant when we’re considering actual oppressions within societies/cultures. it is meaningless.

I saw a post once on here saying ‘some of you deserve to feel less valid’ and I have never seen anything truer. some of you need to get your self-indulgent heads out of your asses too and consider that the entire world doesn’t need to alter itself due to ~your feelings~ and if you think it does, maybe your feelings/identity/whatever are the problem here.