Not The Fun Kind

Nature is impersonal. It's neither cruel nor kind, good nor evil. Our perspective and the qualities we project upon it depend on our vantage point; whether we're women or men, sheep or wolf, powerful or disempowered.

What does make sense is to stop putting pregnancy on a pedestal as some beautiful thing, when it's anything but. There's nothing beautiful about another being growing inside of you, making you ill and weak, your belly becoming distended, and then having to either push the being out in a bloody and excruciating fashion or having to be cut open - and all throughout, risking permanent damage to the body or even death.

Motherhood might reasonably be seen as a wonderful thing (not for me personally of course but for some women), but pregnancy is horrendous.

Ascribing a sense of morality, ethics, or moral value judgment to nature is the least rational, most religious-brained thing you can do. Nature is categorically amoral. Without morals. Without good or evil as those are human moral constructs that we, like the person above correctly says, ascribe and project onto things based on our own personal perspectives. And adding in that we're all a function of this Evil Nature, that we as humans have zero free will or capability to learn behavior (and socialization doesn't exist, apparently) and we are just the mechanical results of our biology is religious (and misogynistic) bullshit. Why don't you just admit you love The Lord Our God and move on?

I am so sick of hearing this bullshit in feminist, and especially radical feminist, discussions. That stupid twitter reply is just new-age half-baked terminally-online blackpillfem bullshit, with a healthy dose of religious-pattern brainrot thrown in.

Would it kill people who insist on talking about morality and nature to pick up just one philosophy text about it, ever?

Nature is not cruel or evil. That is incredibly stupid to suggest. You've just failed philosophy 101, and evolutionary biology 101.

Are you aware of what a describing word is? Are we as humans not allowed to describe how nature’s processes cause us physical and mental pain? I am in no way religious, I do not see how using a word that encompasses the pain such processes cause us women is religious.

Socialization only works to a degree. Why are males all over the world, in various cultures, over thousands of years of civilization, still way more violent than females? What do you say to all the mothers who have tried their best to ‘socialize’ the violence out of their sons, only for it to not work?

Women dying and tearing in childbirth, being raped, the pain so many women and girls suffer from their menstrual cycle, you believe these processes are ‘neutral’? That a human-constructed word to convey great pain and suffering, such as ‘evil’, cannot be used to describe these processes of nature?

You are having a hissy fit over me describing painful and horrific events forced upon women. Cop on to yourself.

I'm going to write more on this later, but I take the stance of nature being a neutral and I will explain later. I believe @solanasdworkinlorde is the one I engaged with in a conversation on biology??? Of which I found very educational as someone trying to enter the field (if I remember she is in it). But just as a general topic: just because things happen doesn't mean they should. Our current situation and view on things like childbirth are heavily influenced by how we handle the process. I believe it is not beautiful, nor necessary for motherhood, nor is motherhood amazing either. But I will elaborate later!

So human females and many other species’s females who go through extreme pain and whose bodies quite literally can be torn apart during childbirth, the pain that so many women and girls experience from the menstrual cycle, the horror of rape forced on females, you believe all of this is ‘neutral’?

Do you hear yourself?

Nature is impersonal. It's neither cruel nor kind, good nor evil. Our perspective and the qualities we project upon it depend on our vantage point; whether we're women or men, sheep or wolf, powerful or disempowered.

What does make sense is to stop putting pregnancy on a pedestal as some beautiful thing, when it's anything but. There's nothing beautiful about another being growing inside of you, making you ill and weak, your belly becoming distended, and then having to either push the being out in a bloody and excruciating fashion or having to be cut open - and all throughout, risking permanent damage to the body or even death.

Motherhood might reasonably be seen as a wonderful thing (not for me personally of course but for some women), but pregnancy is horrendous.

Ascribing a sense of morality, ethics, or moral value judgment to nature is the least rational, most religious-brained thing you can do. Nature is categorically amoral. Without morals. Without good or evil as those are human moral constructs that we, like the person above correctly says, ascribe and project onto things based on our own personal perspectives. And adding in that we're all a function of this Evil Nature, that we as humans have zero free will or capability to learn behavior (and socialization doesn't exist, apparently) and we are just the mechanical results of our biology is religious (and misogynistic) bullshit. Why don't you just admit you love The Lord Our God and move on?

I am so sick of hearing this bullshit in feminist, and especially radical feminist, discussions. That stupid twitter reply is just new-age half-baked terminally-online blackpillfem bullshit, with a healthy dose of religious-pattern brainrot thrown in.

Would it kill people who insist on talking about morality and nature to pick up just one philosophy text about it, ever?

Nature is not cruel or evil. That is incredibly stupid to suggest. You've just failed philosophy 101, and evolutionary biology 101.

Are you aware of what a describing word is? Are we as humans not allowed to describe how nature’s processes cause us physical and mental pain? I am in no way religious, I do not see how using a word that encompasses the pain such processes cause us women is religious.

Socialization only works to a degree. Why are males all over the world, in various cultures, over thousands of years of civilization, still way more violent than females? What do you say to all the mothers who have tried their best to ‘socialize’ the violence out of their sons, only for it to not work?

Women dying and tearing in childbirth, being raped, the pain so many women and girls suffer from their menstrual cycle, you believe these processes are ‘neutral’? That a human-constructed word to convey great pain and suffering, such as ‘evil’, cannot be used to describe these processes of nature?

You are having a hissy fit over me describing painful and horrific events forced upon women. Cop on to yourself.

I just wanna know how some of you call yourselves feminists while preaching Catholicism in the same breath. Are you aware that you literally can’t get divorced in Vatican City? Is that okay with you because “marriage is God’s law” or whatever, so women shouldn’t have any rights?

You can’t claim to fight for women’s liberation while defending an institution that has spent centuries oppressing us. The Catholic Church has institutionalized male dominance—banning female clergy, opposing abortion, contraception, and even divorce. These policies directly strip women of autonomy.

If you're picking and choosing what’s convenient while ignoring the harm, that’s not feminism—it’s just cognitive dissonance

All religions paint males as the creator even though every single person who ever lived was built by a female.

It’s the males way of trying to control us, and they have succeeded for thousands of years.

However there are some of us truly brave and intelligent women, who refuse to be a puppet on a string, refuse to be a rib, and refuse to be a tool. We have risen above the males brainwashing, we are our own.

Any male that surrounds you in your daily life is no different than the same males who oppressed women 100 years ago, 1000 years ago, 10000 years ago and so on.

Women in the west look at countries like Afghanistan where female oppression is much more severe than here, but they don’t make the connection that if their father, brother, boyfriend, husband or son had been born in such countries, they would treat women and them the exact same way.

It is the laws that WOMEN FOUGHT FOR in western countries that protect us from certain issues, and even then they don’t always protect us or bring us justice. Males are the same as they were 100 years ago, any number of years ago, they are and always will be inherently evil.

Think of your ancestors who were forced into marriage and birthing children over and over. To be born in a world where you know from the day you’re born that your only use and purpose is to be a slave to a male with absolutely no way out. This still happens in so many parts of the world today, however, because of how selfish how many of you are, the reality only seems to sink in when they imagine themselves and their ancestors in such situations.

The fact there's not a massive uprising of afghani men who want to protect women should tell women all over the world something very important.

Nature is impersonal. It's neither cruel nor kind, good nor evil. Our perspective and the qualities we project upon it depend on our vantage point; whether we're women or men, sheep or wolf, powerful or disempowered.

What does make sense is to stop putting pregnancy on a pedestal as some beautiful thing, when it's anything but. There's nothing beautiful about another being growing inside of you, making you ill and weak, your belly becoming distended, and then having to either push the being out in a bloody and excruciating fashion or having to be cut open - and all throughout, risking permanent damage to the body or even death.

Motherhood might reasonably be seen as a wonderful thing (not for me personally of course but for some women), but pregnancy is horrendous.

Nature is the reason women and males exist in the first place. Nature is the reason why pregnancy destroys our bodies, the reason why males are equipped with an appendage to rape us. Nature is the reason why we hurt, why we feel immense pain.

It does not matter what ‘vantage point’ one has, males will always have the physical power over us to harm us, females will always suffer through reproduction.

How can you say the experiences nature very much forces us to go through is ‘not cruel’?

Just because nature is a process of which no one knows why, doesn’t mean we cannot point out the horrific events it causes for women.

Different topic; Misogyny extended to other female animals.

Artificial insemination and forcefully breeding female animals is sexually exploiting an animal.

I work within the equine industry as a positive reinforcement trainer, and the treatment mares get is absolutely horrific. Almost everyone who owns a mare will breed them, and majority of the time the mare has no say. It is such common practice to tie a mare up so that she cannot move and force a stallion on her. Left to her own choice a mare is capable of killing a stallion if he refuses to leave her alone, she cannot even try to escape or deter him in the position she is forced in.

This is the reality for so many female animals in captivity, and the reasoning is always a misogynistic one which removes the female’s autonomy in her reproduction.

Mares and many other female animals in the wild pick the male, it is their choice whether they choose to breed or not, humans (majority males, I rarely see females preform these practices) take this choice away from them.

There are unfortunately a lot of women who engage in these practices with animals, and the disconnect they have to their fellow female animals is disturbing.

While I agree that animal rights is a huge deal and should be more focused on, none of this misogyny, the hatred and oppression of women, because women is the plural of woman which means adult female human. Human is in the definition.

Animal practices need to change but equating female humans with female animals by calling the oppression of female animals misogyny is quite literally dehumanizing.

I don’t know what way you’ve interpreted this post but it’s completely wrong.

Misogyny against human females is extended and placed on other female animals too. If you worked within animal industries you would know that. The way people talk about mares in my field is exactly like women, in regard to hormones and general behavior, it’s all put down to her being a “bitch” and “drama Queen”. Many female animals pain is written off the same way our pain as human females is.

Do you see the way males speak about female animals? It’s the same way they speak about us. There is almost no difference.

Sure not everything is the same, but there is serious overlap. I believe as radfems we should include it in our mission to put female animals on top too, as in our current world almost every animal species is described with the male, the male is the focus, even if the species is matriarchal. Orcas are named after a “god” for fucks sake. In my work horses in sentence and science are always referred to as “he”. All these little things help make up the patriarchal structure in our own society.

If you see people pointing out human misogyny being extended to female animals and instantly think it’s dehumanizing to human females, that sounds like an internal issue of viewing the abuse other female animals go through by males as a non-related issue, which it’s not, because it’s directly derived from human misogyny.

Make up a new word for it if you wish, but I’m not aware of any other specific word that exists to describe it.

I just think you have the order of operations the wrong way around and otherwise it’s true. Still, just as animal rights isnt inherently tied to lgb rights, even though animals are bred without any care for what their sexuality is, and animal rights arent inherently tied to racial rights, even though people tend to refer to black dogs and other black animals with racially oppressive terms and actions, animal rights arent inherently tied to women’s rights, even though female animals are referred to with misogynistic language and actions.

If you can see how animal rights is separate from the other causes while still being affected by them, then you can see how women’s liberation would indeed ameliorate many conditions that animals and livestock face without being inherently tied to the cause.

It’s like how men could show emotions associated with women without social backlash if women were liberated, but men being able to cry is not an inherent cause within women’s liberation, also known as feminism.

I think this is also akin to how people said in the french revolution that class rights were inherently tied to women’s rights so class rights coming first would actually, somehow, be working on women’s rights which would naturally follow suit, so the french revolution, led at first by mainly women, became a man’s revolution, leading to class rights expanding over bloody awful time and women’s rights still being only fought for by women.

“If we fight for animals to have better rights then women’s rights will naturally follow suit” is just the newest “we have to fight for this first before we can get to women”

Where on earth did I say in the OP that we should focus on female animals and forget about women?

I NEVER said we should forget about women’s issues? I was pointing the links out, I don’t know what the fuck kind of conclusions you’re coming to, but it’s wild.

You never said we should forget about women. You said animal rights is inherently a part of feminism, which is false and I was comparing that to the many times people have said other causes were inherent parts of women’s liberation only for that idea to then be used to put actual women’s causes on the back burner.

I’m quite flattered you believe me making one post about the links between misogyny faced by women and how it’s extended to other female animals is enough to change the whole feminist movement and drive everyone to forget about women’s issues, I certainly don’t have that much power, if I did then every issue we face would be gone overnight.

I never said anything about “animal rights” as a whole, I’m speaking about female misogyny extended to other female animals.

In the world we live in male animals are placed on a pedestal in every species, as radfems we should make it our aim to change the narrative and place all female animals at the top. Everyone in our society is tainted by males, pointing out ways we need to work on it isn’t taking away from the root issue.

Different topic; Misogyny extended to other female animals.

Artificial insemination and forcefully breeding female animals is sexually exploiting an animal.

I work within the equine industry as a positive reinforcement trainer, and the treatment mares get is absolutely horrific. Almost everyone who owns a mare will breed them, and majority of the time the mare has no say. It is such common practice to tie a mare up so that she cannot move and force a stallion on her. Left to her own choice a mare is capable of killing a stallion if he refuses to leave her alone, she cannot even try to escape or deter him in the position she is forced in.

This is the reality for so many female animals in captivity, and the reasoning is always a misogynistic one which removes the female’s autonomy in her reproduction.

Mares and many other female animals in the wild pick the male, it is their choice whether they choose to breed or not, humans (majority males, I rarely see females preform these practices) take this choice away from them.

There are unfortunately a lot of women who engage in these practices with animals, and the disconnect they have to their fellow female animals is disturbing.

While I agree that animal rights is a huge deal and should be more focused on, none of this misogyny, the hatred and oppression of women, because women is the plural of woman which means adult female human. Human is in the definition.

Animal practices need to change but equating female humans with female animals by calling the oppression of female animals misogyny is quite literally dehumanizing.

I don’t know what way you’ve interpreted this post but it’s completely wrong.

Misogyny against human females is extended and placed on other female animals too. If you worked within animal industries you would know that. The way people talk about mares in my field is exactly like women, in regard to hormones and general behavior, it’s all put down to her being a “bitch” and “drama Queen”. Many female animals pain is written off the same way our pain as human females is.

Do you see the way males speak about female animals? It’s the same way they speak about us. There is almost no difference.

Sure not everything is the same, but there is serious overlap. I believe as radfems we should include it in our mission to put female animals on top too, as in our current world almost every animal species is described with the male, the male is the focus, even if the species is matriarchal. Orcas are named after a “god” for fucks sake. In my work horses in sentence and science are always referred to as “he”. All these little things help make up the patriarchal structure in our own society.

If you see people pointing out human misogyny being extended to female animals and instantly think it’s dehumanizing to human females, that sounds like an internal issue of viewing the abuse other female animals go through by males as a non-related issue, which it’s not, because it’s directly derived from human misogyny.

Make up a new word for it if you wish, but I’m not aware of any other specific word that exists to describe it.

I just think you have the order of operations the wrong way around and otherwise it’s true. Still, just as animal rights isnt inherently tied to lgb rights, even though animals are bred without any care for what their sexuality is, and animal rights arent inherently tied to racial rights, even though people tend to refer to black dogs and other black animals with racially oppressive terms and actions, animal rights arent inherently tied to women’s rights, even though female animals are referred to with misogynistic language and actions.

If you can see how animal rights is separate from the other causes while still being affected by them, then you can see how women’s liberation would indeed ameliorate many conditions that animals and livestock face without being inherently tied to the cause.

It’s like how men could show emotions associated with women without social backlash if women were liberated, but men being able to cry is not an inherent cause within women’s liberation, also known as feminism.

I think this is also akin to how people said in the french revolution that class rights were inherently tied to women’s rights so class rights coming first would actually, somehow, be working on women’s rights which would naturally follow suit, so the french revolution, led at first by mainly women, became a man’s revolution, leading to class rights expanding over bloody awful time and women’s rights still being only fought for by women.

“If we fight for animals to have better rights then women’s rights will naturally follow suit” is just the newest “we have to fight for this first before we can get to women”

Where on earth did I say in the OP that we should focus on female animals and forget about women?

I NEVER said we should forget about women’s issues? I was pointing the links out, I don’t know what the fuck kind of conclusions you’re coming to, but it’s wild.

Different topic; Misogyny extended to other female animals.

Artificial insemination and forcefully breeding female animals is sexually exploiting an animal.

I work within the equine industry as a positive reinforcement trainer, and the treatment mares get is absolutely horrific. Almost everyone who owns a mare will breed them, and majority of the time the mare has no say. It is such common practice to tie a mare up so that she cannot move and force a stallion on her. Left to her own choice a mare is capable of killing a stallion if he refuses to leave her alone, she cannot even try to escape or deter him in the position she is forced in.

This is the reality for so many female animals in captivity, and the reasoning is always a misogynistic one which removes the female’s autonomy in her reproduction.

Mares and many other female animals in the wild pick the male, it is their choice whether they choose to breed or not, humans (majority males, I rarely see females preform these practices) take this choice away from them.

There are unfortunately a lot of women who engage in these practices with animals, and the disconnect they have to their fellow female animals is disturbing.

While I agree that animal rights is a huge deal and should be more focused on, none of this misogyny, the hatred and oppression of women, because women is the plural of woman which means adult female human. Human is in the definition.

Animal practices need to change but equating female humans with female animals by calling the oppression of female animals misogyny is quite literally dehumanizing.

I don’t know what way you’ve interpreted this post but it’s completely wrong.

Misogyny against human females is extended and placed on other female animals too. If you worked within animal industries you would know that. The way people talk about mares in my field is exactly like women, in regard to hormones and general behavior, it’s all put down to her being a “bitch” and “drama Queen”. Many female animals pain is written off the same way our pain as human females is.

Do you see the way males speak about female animals? It’s the same way they speak about us. There is almost no difference.

Sure not everything is the same, but there is serious overlap. I believe as radfems we should include it in our mission to put female animals on top too, as in our current world almost every animal species is described with the male, the male is the focus, even if the species is matriarchal. Orcas are named after a “god” for fucks sake. In my work horses in sentence and science are always referred to as “he”. All these little things help make up the patriarchal structure in our own society.

If you see people pointing out human misogyny being extended to female animals and instantly think it’s dehumanizing to human females, that sounds like an internal issue of viewing the abuse other female animals go through by males as a non-related issue, which it’s not, because it’s directly derived from human misogyny.

Make up a new word for it if you wish, but I’m not aware of any other specific word that exists to describe it.

Uh. No. Human women are more important than animals. Conflating the two DOES lower women down to the status of animals.

I understand you care about animal welfare and animals are important to you, but humans ARE more important. If there was a building full of women and a building full of female dogs and you only had time to save one from a fire, which would you pick?

It's not wrong to pick the women! It's just how hierarchies work!

We ARE animals, yes we obviously operate and are more complex in many ways, but we are inherently animals.

Female animals are not less important than female humans.

Where on earth did I say in the op “that we should solve female animals issues first and forget about women?” Where did I say that?

Of course I would save women first, because they are closest to me, but that doesn’t mean female animals should be neglected.

Male humans are as important as a spec of dust to me.