Women were never created from men's ribs, not ever. It is HE who emerges from HER womb. Framing the father as the life giver is a patriarchal lie, it's not true.
boys and men will try to convince you that humans are intrinsically selfish and egotistical because they can’t cope with the fact that women are actually taught from birth to put their community, their friends, their family, everyone on equal (sometimes even higher) footing.
male individualism is completely dependent on the emotional labour of women, and whenever you try to point this out they act like you’re denying basic human facts
Human societies weren’t always male-dominated. The switch came when we became farmers – and that suggests ways to roll back towards a more equal system
“THE vast majority of cultures are patriarchies, where men are more likely than women to hold positions of social, economic and political power. So it is tempting to assume that this is the natural state of affairs, perhaps because men are, on average, stronger than women. But a study of humanity’s roots suggests this answer is too simple.
Chimpanzees are not a proxy for our ancestors – they have been evolving since our two family trees split between 7 and 10 million years ago – but their social structures can tell us something about the conditions that male dominance thrives in. Common chimpanzee groups are manifestly patriarchal. Males are vicious towards females, they take their food, forcibly copulate with females that are ovulating and even kill them merely for spending time away from the group.
Males also spend their lives in the group they were born into, whereas females leave at adolescence. As a result, males in a group are more closely related to each other than the females. And because relatives tend to help one another, they have an advantage.
The same is true in human societies: in places where women move to live with their husband’s family, men tend to have more power and privilege. Patrilocal residence, as it is called, is associated with patriarchy, says anthropologist and primatologist Sarah Hrdy at the University of California at Davis.
For most of our history, we have been hunter-gatherers, and patrilocal residence is not the norm among modern hunter-gatherer societies. Instead, either partner may move to live with the “in-laws”, or a couple may relocate away from both their families. According to Hrdy, a degree of egalitarianism is built into these systems. If they reflect what prehistoric hunter-gatherers did, women in those early societies would have had the choice of support from the group they grew up with, or the option to move away from oppression.
According to one school of thought, things changed around 12,000 years ago. With the advent of agriculture and homesteading, people began settling down. They acquired resources to defend, and power shifted to the physically stronger males. Fathers, sons, uncles and grandfathers began living near each other, property was passed down the male line, and female autonomy was eroded. As a result, the argument goes, patriarchy emerged.
This origin story is supported by a study published in 2004. Researchers at the Sapienza University of Rome, Italy, studied mitochondrial DNA (inherited from mothers) and genetic markers on the Y chromosome (inherited from fathers) in 40 populations from sub-Saharan Africa. This suggested that women in hunter-gatherer populations, such as the !Kung and Hadza, were more likely to remain with their mothers after marriage than women from food-producing populations. It was the reverse for men, suggesting that agriculture is indeed correlated with patrilocal societies.
“It’s tempting to assume male dominance is the natural state of human society. It isn’t”
In righting things, solidarity is crucial, says Amy Parish at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. She studies bonobo societies, which are patrilocal but female-dominated. Females weigh 15 per cent less than males – similarly to humans and chimps – yet Parish says they have the upper hand because they cooperate and form alliances. She sees a parallel with feminist movements: “The goal is to behave with unrelated females as if they are your sisters.”
It’s not as easy as it seems. “The #MeToo movement is about female cooperation,” says Hrdy, “but getting cooperation among non-kin is difficult.” Competitive instincts can prevail, or events can cause cooperation to fall apart – for instance in times of war, Hrdy says. “Women start to look out for the safety of their own children and their husbands.” She worries that conflict could erode gains from recent decades. “None of this stuff is certain,” she says. “It’s what I tell my daughters: don’t take any of this that you have now for granted.”
Restoring and strengthening equality will require effort on multiple fronts, she says. If patriarchy originated in sedentary social structures that formalised male ownership and inheritance, then laws that give women the right to own property in their own name, for instance, can help.
But such laws exist in many 21st century societies – so why does the patriarchy persist? Ultimately, real change will only come when societies embody the values espoused by the laws, argues Lise Eliot, a neuroscientist at the Rosalind Franklin University in Chicago: “The laws are the first step, the internalized values come later.”
It’s not mentioned in the article, but on the topic of patriarchy originates from family ties, property, and lineage being passed along paternally, it might be worth thinking about how in most patriarchal societies (not all, but most) children get their family name from their father, hence why it’s called a “surname”. Even in cultures and cases where the parents don’t marry, or they do marry but the mother doesn’t change her last time, the family name for the child almost always comes from the father.
maybe if you bundled yourself up and went for a walk out in the cold then came back inside with rosy cheeks and cool skin and warmed yourself up with a nice warm cup of herbal tea with honey maybe then you'd calm down
The demonization of actual charities/orgs in favor of individual GFMs has done nothing but stripped marginalized people of their privacy + dignity by forcing them to become internet celebrities in order to get their needs met as opposed to an org that could privately help them if said org had the funding!!!! Also it’s why people feel the need to go as far as to fake their own kidnappings just to get traction! Not to mention it’s just made the lives of grifters so much easier
To circle back, who benefits more from this? The 65 year old drug addicted woman on skid row who can’t read or the young hot gen z college kid with 10k tiktok followers? This bastardization of “mutual aid” combined the constant like mining dopamine cycle social media has done almost irreparable damage to young wokey people especially young people of color.
Making every poor person dance for the internet in order to get their snazzy twitter begging flyer traction will only set people up for long term failure.
Imagine: I’m a young person down on her luck so I beg on twitter with my real name and face along with every personal detail, I get my coin, I am actually able to put myself through schooling but now whenever an employer googles me they can find this incredibly personal information about me!
I have nothing but sympathy for people who are in a position where they urgently need money and need it fast but we should instead put that money towards orgs whose whole job is to PRIVATELY help people
when ur a woman who is part of any other marginalized group, i think theres a lot of pressure to prioritize that other group, instead of your womanhood, and therefore feminism is seen as a kind of betrayal. i’ve seen a lot of black women talk about how this is the case in their community specifically. which may be the reason why any generic feminist movement will get called racist “queerphobic” ableist etc etc.
i’m indian and i think this is how it works. “you’re americanized,” “this is western bullshit,” etc when you attempt to assert one (1) boundary, which has fuck all to do with nationality. when men say this shit, it is never EVER an example of actual western / white imposition.
which is why there’s no substitute for logic. you have to ask, is this really ‘western’ feminism or literally just a generic plea for dignity / freedom / respect that would’ve resonated with women in almost every time and place for the last few millennia? is this ‘western feminism’ or are the female citizens yelling that child marriage is evil because it’s simply evil? etc
Gay people will be like “this is my comfort show!” And then show you the most emotionally devastating, stress-inducing, tragic piece of media you have ever witnessed
why did the women in 90's TV shows look more like real people, and why do I think women don't look like real people in today's TV shows.
Like.
These are real people. They could walk down the street anytime:
But these? I don't think This Exists in reality:
Like, why is there not a hair out of place, why is their skin looking like it's made out of stone, do you get me? Do you see it? I don't even think their clothes have folds in them from moving.
um no 🥺 I'm not even white, I'm Indian, and I'm saying white women feel the full force of misogyny everyday. even though they hold power over me due to their race, they still share many of my experiences. they are still my sisters and allies against men.
um no 🥺 I'm not even white, I'm Indian, and I'm saying white women feel the full force of misogyny everyday. even though they hold power over me due to their race, they still share many of my experiences. they are still my sisters and allies against men.
kianamaiart
janainaart
tangentwithtanner
jbbartram-illu
dailybridgerton
blakekathryn
titsay
kaledo-art
