#patriarchy in the ancient world

[carolinemillerbooks]

New Post has been published on Books by Caroline Miller

New Post has been published on https://www.booksbycarolinemiller.com/musings/i-die-you-die-they-die/

I Die, You Die, They Die

“Suicide,” someone murmured after reading the announcement that a woman had died at the retirement center. “She was estranged from her family,” said another who stood beside the first speaker. Her remark rang true because the death notice asked that no condolences be left for the family. A shiver of melancholy ran through me as I read it. Being the last of my tribe, I realized that upon my death, no one would need consoling.  Headstones proliferate like autumn leaves in a graveyard but no matter how touching their inscription, the words are unreliable tributes to a life.  A generation passes and few remember. After eons come and go, archeologists may take an interest in a burial mound. And, if they find a necklace or smooth stone left beside someone they have disentombed, they are elated rather than grieved because the found object has been shorn of its memories.       Sometimes two bodies share the same grave, a discovery that raises a question.  Are these bones those of lovers? Or does a mother lie eternally with her stillborn child?  Their deathly embrace tells a story but who remembers? The desire to escape oblivion is potent. A hundred thousand years before homo sapiens walked the earth, the prehuman Homo Naledis buried their dead with mementos before carving the histories of these loved ones on cave walls.  Again, researchers rejoice because while the personal memory of these beings is erased, something about the hominin culture remains.  Patriarchy has a long presence in the affairs of humanoids, for example.  DNA studies of ancient sites suggest that females left their home community to join another– suggesting the probability that they followed their male companion to his home tribe.  Memory is a frail weapon with which to hold back the dark. Technology may come to serve us better.  In an earlier blog,  I wrote that one day we might download our stories into avatars but that would be a pale version of immortality. A combination of technology and biology is also possible, like current efforts to merge Artificial Intelligence (AI) with brain cells.  Will the result make machines smarter?  Or will humans become superhuman? Either way, will the merger help us conquer death?  We must wait to see. Some among us seek a less ambitious goal. With diet and medicinal cocktails, they hope to reverse the aging process.  Regimens like theirs are spartan, often eliminating meat and sugar.  To obtain a longer life, will humans forgo their hamburgers with cokes? Again, we must wait to see. Beyond tinkering with the human lifespan lies an existential question.  Having plundered our planet’s resources to the point of self-extinction, do we have enough time to save our species with discoveries and technological advances?  Or, is our destiny to grovel in the dust for a sip of water? To be or not to be IS  the overwhelming question.  The woman who committed suicide at my retirement center made her choice freely. Others have done the same because without love and respect what is life?  Germaine Greer, a woman near my years, ponders a related question: how to age with dignity?  Once a  professor,  feminist, and author of numerous books, The Female Eunuch most famous among them, and a person brilliant enough to disabuse William F. Buckley of his misconceptions about women’s liberation at 84 faces a growing infirmity. To maintain her independence, she moved into a retirement center.  The solution proved to be unworkable.  There, she suffered endless days of Bingo and bus outings to places that looked the same.  This she endured for ten months, being subjected all the while to abuse from  fellow residents who repeatedly told her to  “shut up.” The treatment must have come as a surprise to a person accustomed to being paid to speak. Fortunately, a brother took pity on Germaine and built a studio in his home where she could live in the bosom of her family but in solitude.  I say, “Happy is a woman with a compassionate brother.”  Happy is the individual who dies loved. Science and technology have the power to lengthen life spans but human attitudes toward aging are slow to change.  In the United States, prejudice against the elderly is the last reservoir of disdain that people feel free to express, as if growing old were a personal failure.  Teenagers may be forgiven for imagining themselves to be immortal, but tyrants who feel the same are fools.   Is it the light that falls from the swords of their armies that blind these dictators? Are they unable to see that like any pauper, they serve no higher purpose than to satisfy the appetites of worms? How greater their history might have been had they considered our common destiny and devoted themselves to acts of kindness.  In death do triumph and failure humbly meet.   (The Victory City by Salman Rushdie, Thorndike Press, 2023, pg. 531.)

[yzuposts]

You’re telling me that the gods moved alongside the West and their form of government NEVER evolved?

[teachanarchy]

What is hysteria, and why were so many women diagnosed with it? - Mark S...

[suzannahnatters]

all RIGHT:

Why You're Writing Medieval (and Medieval-Coded) Women Wrong: A RANT

(Or, For the Love of God, People, Stop Pretending Victorian Style Gender Roles Applied to All of History)

This is a problem I see alllll over the place - I'll be reading a medieval-coded book and the women will be told they aren't allowed to fight or learn or work, that they are only supposed to get married, keep house and have babies, &c &c.

If I point this out ppl will be like "yes but there was misogyny back then! women were treated terribly!" and OK. Stop right there.

By & large, what we as a culture think of as misogyny & patriarchy is the expression prevalent in Victorian times - not medieval. (And NO, this is not me blaming Victorians for their theme park version of "medieval history". This is me blaming 21st century people for being ignorant & refusing to do their homework).

Yes, there was misogyny in medieval times, but 1) in many ways it was actually markedly less severe than Victorian misogyny, tyvm - and 2) it was of a quite different type. (Disclaimer: I am speaking specifically of Frankish, Western European medieval women rather than those in other parts of the world. This applies to a lesser extent in Byzantium and I am still learning about women in the medieval Islamic world.)

So, here are the 2 vital things to remember about women when writing medieval or medieval-coded societies

FIRST. Where in Victorian times the primary axes of prejudice were gender and race - so that a male labourer had more rights than a female of the higher classes, and a middle class white man would be treated with more respect than an African or Indian dignitary - In medieval times, the primary axis of prejudice was, overwhelmingly, class. Thus, Frankish crusader knights arguably felt more solidarity with their Muslim opponents of knightly status, than they did their own peasants. Faith and age were also medieval axes of prejudice - children and young people were exploited ruthlessly, sent into war or marriage at 15 (boys) or 12 (girls). Gender was less important.

What this meant was that a medieval woman could expect - indeed demand - to be treated more or less the same way the men of her class were. Where no ancient legal obstacle existed, such as Salic law, a king's daughter could and did expect to rule, even after marriage.

Women of the knightly class could & did arm & fight - something that required a MASSIVE outlay of money, which was obviously at their discretion & disposal. See: Sichelgaita, Isabel de Conches, the unnamed women fighting in armour as knights during the Third Crusade, as recorded by Muslim chroniclers.

Tolkien's Eowyn is a great example of this medieval attitude to class trumping race: complaining that she's being told not to fight, she stresses her class: "I am of the house of Eorl & not a serving woman". She claims her rights, not as a woman, but as a member of the warrior class and the ruling family. Similarly in Renaissance Venice a doge protested the practice which saw 80% of noble women locked into convents for life: if these had been men they would have been "born to command & govern the world". Their class ought to have exempted them from discrimination on the basis of sex.

So, tip #1 for writing medieval women: remember that their class always outweighed their gender. They might be subordinate to the men within their own class, but not to those below.

SECOND. Whereas Victorians saw women's highest calling as marriage & children - the "angel in the house" ennobling & improving their men on a spiritual but rarely practical level - Medievals by contrast prized virginity/celibacy above marriage, seeing it as a way for women to transcend their sex. Often as nuns, saints, mystics; sometimes as warriors, queens, & ladies; always as businesswomen & merchants, women could & did forge their own paths in life

When Elizabeth I claimed to have "the heart & stomach of a king" & adopted the persona of the virgin queen, this was the norm she appealed to. Women could do things; they just had to prove they were Not Like Other Girls. By Elizabeth's time things were already changing: it was the Reformation that switched the ideal to marriage, & the Enlightenment that divorced femininity from reason, aggression & public life.

For more on this topic, read Katherine Hager's article "Endowed With Manly Courage: Medieval Perceptions of Women in Combat" on women who transcended gender to occupy a liminal space as warrior/virgin/saint.

So, tip #2: remember that for medieval women, wife and mother wasn't the ideal, virgin saint was the ideal. By proving yourself "not like other girls" you could gain significant autonomy & freedom.

Finally a bonus tip: if writing about medieval women, be sure to read writing on women's issues from the time so as to understand the terms in which these women spoke about & defended their ambitions. Start with Christine de Pisan.

I learned all this doing the reading for WATCHERS OF OUTREMER, my series of historical fantasy novels set in the medieval crusader states, which were dominated by strong medieval women! Book 5, THE HOUSE OF MOURNING (forthcoming 2023) will focus, to a greater extent than any other novel I've ever yet read or written, on the experience of women during the crusades - as warriors, captives, and political leaders. I can't wait to share it with you all!

[creature-wizard]

How the "divine feminine" and the "divine masculine" perpetuate patriarchy - and what we can do about it

One thing the occult is very good at is coming up with systems to categorize and conceptualize things. These can be incredibly useful to us in various ways. But we also have to remember that these systems we come up with are mere constructs, and the actual world itself probably doesn't conform to them as we might like. As the saying goes, all maps are wrong. But as the saying also goes, some maps are useful, and some are more useful than others.

One thing that often comes up in esoteric and occult systems are various forms of binaries or polarities. This often makes sense; for example, without light, you have dark. Without heat, you have cold. One party gives, the other takes. Creatures are born, and eventually they die.

But we can run into problems when we start trying to lump all apparent forms of polarities and dualities together. Here's an example: Life/Death, Masculine/Feminine. In doing this, we create an association that might lead us toward some terrible ways of thinking about real people. If we associate masculinity with death, we can find ourselves thinking that waging war and inventing weapons of death is just what men and masc people do, but women can always be counted on to be diplomats and peacekeepers. Or if we associate femininity with death, we might find ourselves more inclined to think that women and femmes have a natural desire to commit infanticide and tear apart societies, and they must be carefully watched and their freedoms limited so they don't upend civilization and endanger the human race.

These are of course extreme examples, but they are real ways that some people think. And you might think to yourself, "well, I don't polarize genders this way, I think people should try to be a healthy balance of masculine and feminine." And if this is you, I want you to ask yourself why you're so attached to categorizing traits as "masculine" and "feminine" at all.

If you're like most people, you probably just came across this in some form of occult or spiritual literature and just adopted it without really asking yourself too many questions about it. When we see something framed as ancient or higher wisdom, it's pretty easy to take it fairly uncritically, especially if it aligns with our unconscious biases in some way. It often doesn't cross our minds to ask where these terms really come from, and what they signified in their original contexts.

You may have heard that male/female stuff has roots in alchemy, which is true. But the thing with alchemy is that it was using familiar terms and concepts to describe chemical processes and reactions. Think of it a little bit like how we use terms like "male plugs" and "female plugs." While old-time alchemy did have a spiritual component to it, it was more about believing that you had to be spiritually pure to make your desired alchemical reactions happen. When alchemy gave way to chemistry, and people began to realize that your spiritual condition had nothing to do with your ability to make things happen in the lab, certain people began to seek more mystical meanings in the works of alchemists, and this idea of masculinity and femininity as transcendent mystical forces unto themselves really started to emerge. It was an incredibly easy concept to project on all kinds of mythologies, because a lot of myths have male and female figures interacting in various ways.

Now the thing is, having myths with male and female figures doesn't mean seeing masculinity and femininity as discrete forces or powers unto themselves. It can mean that they simply personified various figures as male or female depending on what their own experiences and cultural biases suggested to them. For example, straight men tend to think of love and lust as something they experience when they see a beautiful woman. In a patriarchal society, where men are calling most of the shots in conceptualizing the divine, a love deity is thus likely to be personified as a beautiful woman. Straight men can also see beautiful women as a source of discord and strife, so it makes sense that love goddesses would have war aspects to them.

A society where men are sent to war while wives are left behind to raise the children and tend the farm is going to produce an association with men and violence, while the act of nurturing will be associated with women. Men who deny higher education to women are going to produce a society where intellectual pursuits and higher abstract reasoning are associated with masculinity, and intuition and practical knowledge are associated with women. A society where men are seen as bringers of social order and upholders of civilization while women are viewed more like forces of nature than rational actors will associate men with civilization and women with natural, wild spaces.

In continuing to associate these characteristics with the "divine feminine" and the "divine masculine," we preserve and perpetuate the implicit biases created by these patriarchal societies. And while there is absolutely value in saying, "hey, these 'feminine' things are actually valuable and worth respect actually," framing them as intrinsically feminine in any sense - physically, psychologically, or metaphysically - will undermine any effort to dismantle patriarchy and bring true equality.

So what can you do? I would suggest being more specific.

Do you mean passive/active? Then just say it.

Do you mean giver/receiver? Then just say it.

Do you mean harmonizing/disrupting? Then just say it.

Whatever you have filed under boxes labeled "masculine" and "feminine," you can simply take them out of those boxes and find better categories for them.

[biracy]

The John Post

The thing about John Gaius is like… a lot of people refuse to recognize him as like a Bad Guy, and a lot of people criticize tlt for having him as a Bad Guy, for similar reasons. I think a lot of people have these ideas that colonialism and empire and the vague concept of "war crimes" are bad due to some kind of ontological evil within the souls of white men or something, and that misogyny and the objectification of women exist due to some kind of ontological evil within the souls of straight men. Relating to the former, I think a lot of people hold a sort of "but it's okay when we do it" approach to systems of oppressive power + imperialism, where their vision of a perfect world is not one without these things, but ones where currently marginalized people get to participate in colonial and imperialist power forces just as much as the white men ("I hear the next one will be sent by a woman!"). John Gaius is both a representation of this and a good litmus test for people's opinions on this - he was a bisexual, Māori man living in colonized Aotearoa, and when he got to remake the universe, he made one where he is the emperor. Instead of making a world where these systems no longer exist, John went "but it's okay when I do it." A lot of people in real life are like this, honestly - a lot of marginalized people choose to only understand liberation and empowerment through the lens of the power wielded by their oppressors. It's an attractive concept, at first, but it doesn't really work in the long run and it cannot provide liberation for everyone. John becoming the most powerful man in the universe, literally becoming God, gives HIM that power, but does not give EVERYONE that power. The Nine Houses are subjugated under him, the non-House planets are regularly destroyed by him, and even his Lyctors are decidedly "under" him, even after ten thousand years. In choosing to wield the weapons of his oppressors for himself, John becomes not a liberator but an oppressor in his own right.

The same thing can be said about John and gender; people tend to reduce the misogyny John expresses because he's bisexual and played with girls' toys, but bisexual men are just as capable of wielding patriarchy against women as straight men. People also find it difficult to grapple with how John, a Māori man, constructed a blonde Barbie to house the soul of the Earth in, and are hesitant to analyze him as misogynistic because of this. But John making Alecto a Barbie, the icon of white femininity, is the same as him becoming an emperor and surrounding himself with Lyctors in the ancient Roman fashion. Alecto is the idealized white woman, and she is John's. John created her, possesses her, embodies her, in what is both a patriarchal power trip and a marginalized person taking power into his own hands. Alecto being a blonde white woman, being Barbie, carries very clear colonialist AND misogynistic connotations. White supremacy and colonialism has taught John that a blonde-haired white woman is the feminine ideal, which is backed up by the white, blonde-haired and blue-eyed Barbies of his childhood. At the same time, Barbie has an extensive history of being criticized for misogyny, with the doll's design embodying a very clear feminine sexual ideal. The desire to control and contain a beautiful woman is an inherently patriarchal one, and John takes it to the extreme when he chains his Barbie in a coffin at the center of a labyrinth. Alecto is the patriarchal fantasy to wholly possess a beautiful woman, powered by hundreds of years of colonialism teaching John what a beautiful woman even is, filtered through a thin veneer of exerting power over an image of whiteness (although John's treatment of Alecto is primarily misogynistic - it's a very clear part of the text and you need to get comfortable confronting that).

John Gaius is an example of a marginalized person who wishes for the power he has been denied, yet hasn't fully deconstructed colonialism and patriarchy. The only things separating him from anyone else fitting this description is that a) he is a fictional character being written deliberately and b) he had the opportunity to become God. And when John Gaius became God, he didn't change the world; he just made a world where he was in charge. This is an extremely important part of the books! The books are very clearly making commentary on both imperialism and misogyny, and to have people so passionately ignore these themes because they can be uncomfortable to talk about is disheartening. John is a character that invites so much analysis and conversation, there are so many layers to why he is the way he is and what that contributes to the books. People are so unwilling to discuss misogyny and assault or so uncomfortable with the idea of calling a nonwhite guy an imperialist that they steamroll right over these themes, which loses a lot of what makes the books so interesting to begin with in the process.

[ihateliterature]

Not many people know what amatonormativity is and I think that's a shame because it's a very useful concept to keep in mind

So let's do a crash course

What is amatonormativity?

A term coined by Elisabeth Brake in 2011 in her book Minimizing Marriage: Marriage, Morality, and the Law, used to explain the societal assumption that all people seek romantic relationships in the form of long term monogamous relationships. Easy, right? No

Nothing in life is so easy, especially not something like an idea taken as absolute truth by most people for as long as we can remember

Let's take it from the top

Amatonormativity intersects with cisnormativity, heteronormativity and patriarchal gender norms. What amatonormativity tells us is that EVERYONE wants and needs a committed heterosexual monogamous romantic relationship that usually ends in children. The American 50's ideal is a good example of that

The reason why the other terms I mentioned are not enough to talk about these issues is that they don't target specifically the nature of relationships under patriarchy. They are obviously talked about (especially in discussions about gender norms) but they are not the focus. There is also the problem that many don't recognize the insistence of love as a measure for one's humanity as a problem at all

We live in a world where love is considered to be the very proof of humanity. This is obviously a problem because there is no universally accepted definition of love outside amatonormativity, which claims that only romantic and familial love exist. There is no acknowledgement of alternative ways to love or of humanity existing apart from this concept

What is love? This is what I want to ask you, and I want everyone to think seriously about this question. Is it the idea of a soulmate, of finding your "other half"? Because then comes the 'why?'. Why should anyone find their 'other half'? Why can't people be whole on their own? Is there any weight to this idea at all?

But wait! Some will say! That's not all there is to love. Love is the affection and care you hold for other people. And that is a fair answer. But now I want to ask you, why should that be the measure for someone's humanity?

This conversation goes in circles. Philosophers have tried to find a way to define humanity since Ancient Greece and probably longer, and I'm not here to attempt to answer this question

But there is another question I can answer: why is it important? Why is amatonormativity and being aware of it important? Several reasons. Not only does it affect the lives of aspecs, polyamorous people, childfree and infertile people by making them feel less human for not participating in it's rituals, it also implicitly supports cisnormativity and heteronormativity

The model proposed by amatonormativity is ripe for exploitation, manipulation and abuse. It cuts off people's support networks by devaluing all other kinds of connections, it keeps people from leaving abusive relationships by eliminating all kinds of alternatives to happiness and fulfillment, it makes people enter relationships they don't want because it makes it seem like there is no other alternative, it blinds people to potential or ongoing abuse because it makes us believe that love can only be good and pure

Amatonormativity is often talked about in aspec and polyamorous spaces, but many others are unaware of its influence, and I think this is a mistake and another example of amatonormativity (blinding people to the flaws and alternatives to the ideal it proposes is another way amatonormativity works). And this is a shame, because the queer and feminist movements (along with all the other progressive movements) can't ever attain their goals without addressing amatonormativity

[hadesoftheladies]

it's normal to be insulted by femininity as a girl or woman and it's really simple why.

the core philosophy of patriarchy is that men and women are not defined by their sex but by their sexual roles in the male sexual hierarchy (a naturalistic fallacy). the philosophy of patriarchy cannot allow for equality at any given point, because a man ceases to be a man if he is not dominant and a woman seizes to be a woman if she is not submissive. keep this in mind.

so a woman as defined by patriarchy is a complementary thing (non-human, like animals or "nature") to a man's estate. the woman identity, as construed by patriarchy, exists solely for male pleasure and estate. that means the woman is only a woman if (it/she) is an asset to a male's estate. so it/she must be a wife, a concubine, a tradeable daughter (this is opportunity for wealth), a prostitute or mother. please note, in all these roles, a woman is always meant to be subordinate or she/it is not a woman.

now remember, this is only patriarchal philosophy, but this philosophy/worldview needs to become an ideology and way of life. so patriarchs, in order to justify their made-up bullshit about the sexes and their right to exploit without consequences, must naturalize this worldview. they can create patriarchal religions (for whichever has the power over life and death defines the value and purpose of a soul) and language (whoever defines the world controls how it is perceived).

but CLOTHES are an expression of both. clothes, aside from simply being utilitarian (even in ancient times), were visual symbols denoting things like class, age, sex, nationality, and beliefs. NOW UNDERSTAND, the first class distinction in human societies was between men and women. men were higher humans hence were to be treated as a distinct upper class, and women were lower-class.

class distinction via sex was the first kind of class distinction. so it became increasingly important to the patriarchal state that women and men had to dress according to their class (the Old Testament of the Bible shows that this was indeed important to early patriarchal states in the ANE via verses like Deuteronomy 22:5 which reads, “A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.”) In short, clothes do not have sex (no garment can chan he your chromosomes), but they do have sex-class (which is gender).

in the development of patriarchy, the veil in the ancient near east, became a symbol of women's sexual status, publicly announcing them as married, concubines, virgins, etc. (i encourage you to read The Beginning of Patriarchy by Gerda Lerner for more in-depth information on all this). clothes then, and today, have always been about determining women as a sexual class and what role they performed in that sexual class (modest, up for sale, married, low-value, lesbian/deviant).

because men get to define what women are, they get to define what our clothes mean. they get to decide if something is modest or if a woman is "asking for it."

what does this have to do with femininity?

patriarchal belief= a woman is a thing, defined explicitly by her inequality to man, that exists purely for the pleasure and purpose of the man. this means a woman can only be a sexual slave (whether as a mother/wife or a whore) and cannot live or exist outside of this male-defined sexuality (temptress/justified sexualization of underage girls) without becoming something other than a woman (a monster, a witch, ungodly, mentally ill). since it was made for man, it cannot pursue interests outside of pleasing him and still be a natural, healthy thing.

enter gender.

femininity (and gender) is how women are regulated by the patriarchal state. it is a costume, a uniform, that signifies an obedient subordinate, but it is also a performance that is constantly tested and scored. women with low scores get re-educated or removed from society (via death or ostracization). femininity is how women are policed. all you have to do is to look at the traits of femininity and it's rules.

the natural female face/body should always be palatable, pleasing and presentable to the man and what he specifically finds attractive (so it doesn't matter that you're from a different culture or of a different class, if you're dressing "modestly" or "promiscuously"--this is the only primary rule: that you please men and that you are tasteful to the man who fancies you)

this means that the woman's health is secondary and her body should be editable, adaptable, picked apart and put back together on a whim, on any and every level to appeal to any man who wants her (cosmetic surgery, corsets, trends)

nurture is paramount to the character of a woman (because a woman is meant to be an excellent breeder)

softness and smallness (signals submissiveness, passiveness, defeat, weakness--all of which are proper womanly behaviour)

martyrdom (a woman exists for the preservation of the man and his estate)

silence (this communicates mental submission which is important, women should not voice their experiences, grievances, frustrations, desires, stories because she is showing agency and none of these qualities aid her identity as a sexual servant)

i want you to look at and analyze, even within your own cultures, what femininity is defined as wherever it exists, and then see if you can find any connection to how it enforces the idea of the patriarchal woman-thing. the entire performance, clothing and behaviour, is enforced in order to justify the fictional woman-thing in patriarchal imagination.

but you are a human being.

you have always been able to think, feel, disagree, feel anger . . . because you are a person with a sense of dignity, history and purpose outside male-defined sexuality. so when you as a girl or woman express disdain at femininity, it is not because you think "feminine" women are beneath you. it is because you know femininity is beneath every woman and yourself.

the capitalistically driven insecurity market that pushes women to seek out the security of male validation is beneath all of us. the performance is beneath all of us. we were human before we were mothers, wives, sex workers. we were beautiful and wonderful before makeup. we were human before men looked at us and called us fuckable. we were powerful and divine before men told us we were demonic and simply angelic, servants of gods rather than goddesses ourselves. we had the capacity to create and invent the world before men told us we didn't have heads for learning.

we have always been human and always will be.

femininity is a patriarchal polemic against our humanity. it's fundamental philosophy disagrees with the reality of us. that's why there's so much anger and fear around this culture.

some of us, as girls, resented the fact that our mothers asked us to swallow the fact that they accepted (as right) their humiliation and ours. that they wanted us to show men and boys that we accepted that we were made to be humiliated. of course we got angry. of course we felt confused. didn't our mothers, sisters, aunts, friends care that this performance was never-ending humiliation as we were forced to parade ourselves in order to compete for male approval? in front of the eyes of men and boys we knew mocked us for everything? so we said, we're not like other girls. other girls want to keep up with this. maybe they like humiliation? but we can't live this way. something must be wrong with us, or with them. they're sheep, or we're disgusting lesbians. but the truth is that we're all just in a world of pain and desperation.

your (feminine) clothes are not made with you in mind, but they are also made to keep you minding yourself. checking yourself. making sure your bra doesn't show. your underwear doesn't slip. your belly isn't too prominent. it keeps you eager to perform your role. to win against a race you can't even define because you haven't ever questioned if it ends. you get approval from the state because you are trained to self-regulate, and you have been trained well. the relief you feel at the approval of other girls or boys is that they are giving you a high score. which means you are safe. you are beautiful, you are a good performer. you will be picked and not left behind.

you may say you dress for the girls, but that's part of the problem, still. you and the girls are. you are still agreeing with the political philosophy of patriarchy when you uncritically wear the uniform of the woman-thing. you think of yourself as the woman-thing. you think of your face and body as infinitely editable. delete the breasts, delete the pores, enlarge the eyes like you're a doll on a Wii avatar creator. and so other girls are scared of being themselves because you all know there's something here to fear. there's rejection and punishment waiting for pretty ladies who don't comply.

but you're a living, complete human being, darling. you are an ecosystem with mysteries as old as the universe in you. you are a person that deserves to be here fully and freely. this is your world, too. our world.

so you see why gender cannot be reclaimed by us in a meaningful sense? it is a performance that is invented, re-invented and validated by the philosophy of our dehumanization. it will never be independent of it in this system.

you are worth the freedom and strength you can give yourself. you are worth the fight out of this.

[jadedbirch]

Girls don't want boys; girls want to battle ancient gods to the death!

My friends, the time has finally come for me to review the entire Burning Kingdom's trilogy by Tasha Suri. I've mentioned it before in my rec list of queer historical novels, but that was before I completed The Lotus Empire, the last book in the series. And now I can say with conviction: Tasha Suri is the only writer out there who truly understands love and romance and WHAT SAPPHICS WANT. 🙌🏻

To back up, the Burning Kingdom's story takes place in the imaginary kingdom of Parijatvipa (a reimagining of South East Asia/India with a lot of magical realism flowing through its veins). One of our heroines, Malini, is a princess who has been told all her life by the clergy and her younger brother the Emperor that her destiny is sacrificial immolation. Our second heroine, Priya, is a priestess in the ancient and mystical temple of the Hirana, where for centuries Temple Elders and Temple Children have worshipped the Yaksa (ancient nature divinity spirits that were supposedly destroyed at the end of the Age of Flowers). Their love story begins when Malini is sent by her brother to repent at the Hirana for her unwillingness to be burned alive and Priya is assigned to be her servant/guard.

The trilogy follows the two women as they clash against each other like waves, or like two powerful tornadoes that destroy everything in their path. Their love might be easier if one of them was softer, but what makes Priya and Malini such a power couple, is that they're both incredible badasses with spines of steel and nerves of fire. The stakes cannot be higher and only keep rising. It starts out as one Princess vs The Patriarchy, and ends with Gods vs Nature, Humans vs. Gods, and Sapphic Love Conquering All. I feel it is very important to let everyone know that the trilogy has a very satisfying ending, despite the many devastating and heart-breaking twists and turns along the way.

While this trilogy is incredibly Girl Power and is full of countless badass lady characters, I must say that one of the reasons I enjoy Tara Suri as a writer is because she also understands how to write good male characters from the female gaze perspective. Sure, some of the men in this book are horrid villains, but then she gives us truly complex and good boys like Rao (I would die for Rao), Aditiya, Jeevan, Ganam, and Rukh along the way.

This series is really riveting and never stops delivering. We get really wonderful gay/lesbian solidarity. We get so much great ladies supporting ladies content (Bechdel test? LOL Tasha Suri straight blows right past it into a different dimension of female solidarity.) We get hot girl on girl under the waterfall action. We get gorgeous rumination on the nature of faith and sacrifice. But most importantly, we get two very deeply flawed women who love each other so powerfully and so beautifully that their love literally reshapes the world.

I am begging everyone to drop whatever they're doing and read this series. It's really up there for me as some of the Best Gay Shit Ever.

[theodysseyofhomer]

when i insist on odysseus as a rape victim i'm not trying to absolve him of patriarchy. he is, in many ways, a hero of patriarchy. even if i think some of the people who use him that way rhetorically have probably not read the odyssey, let alone understood its nuances, the cultural world of the poem and the narrative itself are patriarchal, and odysseus is both a product and perpetrator of that. but when i read about calypso forcing odysseus to have sex with her, i will still call it rape, not because i like him as a character, although i do, but because i think to not do so reveals a very troubling attitude toward rape and patriarchy in the ancient context and now.

i've tried and tried but i don't know how to have this conversation with someone who is determined not to accept the premise that, in the text of the odyssey, odysseus has no choice in the matter. if they've read the text, it's right there. from what i can read of the greek, it's there (ἀνάγκη, force, constraint). i've never read a translation where it wasn't there. if they just don't care, that pretty much kills the discussion.* but sometimes they'll try to sidestep it, bringing up that the text implies he slept with calypso willingly at some point, or arguing that she doesn't explicitly compel him on the last night they spend together before he leaves ogygia forever.** to be frank, that's not the point. i'm not trying to absolve him even of the accusation of cheating on penelope. i'm not saying he was faithful to penelope. i'm saying he was still, at the point that we meet him in the odyssey, raped. period. i'm saying that's important in some way. i'm saying that using that word is important.

odysseus has power, as a man in a patriarchal society, but that power is not absolute. power is never absolute. i've heard it suggested that in the ancient context, the rape of odysseus is comic, in the sense of affirming life even in its indignities, and in the sense that humiliation is amusing (i have a lot of disagreements with the article, but it has given me endless food for thought). i'm quoting at length here, but bear with me:

Athena leaves Odysseus lingering on Calypso’s island in what is certainly the most unheroic, most challenging of all the trials that befall him on his return home. The narrator describes Odysseus as desperately wanting to leave Ogygia, crying in homesickness, but having to stay and, more to the point, share Calypso’s bed. I mentioned much earlier that an audience of that period would not expect celibacy from a married male away from home. Yet the situation must produce, it seems to me, quite another reaction in the males in the audience when the narrator emphasizes Odysseus’ profound unhappiness with the arrangements. In a patriarchal society of that time, where marriages were arranged and wedding nights were more likely than not sanctioned rape scenes, households teemed with female slaves, the highways and byways with prostitutes, men were no doubt accustomed from puberty to have their way easily with women, and on their own terms. Nothing in their experience would prepare them for enforced sexual servitude to a woman. [...] With this episode, the narrator has introduced a comic counterpart to the ubiquitous comments on the faithful Penelope’s celibacy, that is, the image of her husband manfully performing his nightly duties in the home of the insatiable Calypso. It is comic, yes, but also every man’s deepest fear.

why is it comic? because it's a reversal of expectation, of roles, of fortune. why is it unexpected? because it exploits the fear that a man could be treated by a woman the way he treats a woman; because a woman becomes monstrous by acting like a man. these are misogynistic ideas and fears, and they sound strikingly modern.

which means that: i understand the impulse to salvage calypso's image. i understand how it could be interesting or productive or empowering maybe, for some women, because homer is so concerned with any fault in penelope's sex life (reinforced by clytemnestra’s, and those of the slave women that odysseus and penelope own) and seemingly not at all with odysseus’. but calypso is arguing for the right of female gods to treat human beings however they want to, not for the rights of human women.

it also means that: the rape of odysseus becomes remarkable, when the rape of countless others is not, because of who he is. it's humiliating for him to be treated like a sex slave because he's a man and a king; other slaves are just slaves. similar logic is found elsewhere in the odyssey (it's humiliating for him to be treated like a beggar, but the other beggar in the house is just a beggar). this is not a text that believes in equal rights of any kind. but i think we have to ask the question, is it not rape because of that? should we not call it rape because he's a man, because he's a man who perpetrates specific evils, because other people have it worse? and why do i keep arguing that his situation is important to remark on?

god. i don't know. sometimes? just because we don't.

i've lost count of posts like this, comments like this, attitudes like this, of how many times i mention the odyssey and immediately hear about calypso, of how at best odysseus weeping on ogygia becomes the butt of the joke. and i'm not sorry that i don't find it more progressive than treating calypso as a shrill misogynistic stereotype. i do not find it interesting or original to take a man who is not in the position of power in a sexual encounter and say that he's being either disingenuous, ungrateful, or mystifying.

when we refuse to name what calypso does to odysseus as rape, absolutely regardless of what we feel for him, just that it happened, that that's what's going on, i think we do something sinister, potentially to real people. especially because this exists in a text where slavery is also often unnamed in translation and discussion, and other forms of rape and captivity and human suffering, and i think we need to name them all, without being afraid that naming one will take away from the others. saying odysseus was raped doesn't mean we excuse the intense misogyny penelope is subjected to, the enslaved lives of melantho and the other hanged women. it all matters. it's all important.

*as does the suggestion that odysseus could be lying and actually had a great time. but odysseus isn't the one telling us what's going down on ogygia; the narrator is. when given the opportunity, odysseus himself says very little, only maintaining that his heart wasn't in it. of course odysseus could be lying. he could always be lying. but calypso is the most relevant counter-perspective we have, and even she doesn't claim that odysseus wants her, just that she thinks he ought to be happy with her. it's to her obvious frustration that he isn't. without another authority in the text, saying "it could be straight lies" is a conversational dead-end.

and if, by the way, there's a lost version of the odyssey in which odysseus was philandering, and the version we have was written to clear him of those charges... it's still the version we have. how we deal with it says something about us.

**if i say "calypso raped odysseus" and a hypothetical person (actually several real people i have encountered) makes this counterargument, that implies that the threat of force is, then, what? not real? if 'at some point' being willing means that the harm of whatever came after that point is negated, it casts him as someone who mopes around out of boredom with an equal partner, when the text seems much clearer on the point that he's in this position against his will than under what circumstances and for how long he might have slept with her willingly. they are clearly not equals by the mere fact that she is a goddess; his mortality is, in calypso's eyes, the barrier between them. rip to everyone who finds the decision to leave ogygia a "surprising choice" but i am never less surprised by odysseus than when he's handling calypso as delicately as possible, in order to leave her as fast as he can.

[oh-mi-amor]

what the actual fuck

can someone explain to me how one can be "traditionally feminine" outside of patriarchy, when the concept itself is a product of patriarchy. yeah I get that you, as a lesbian, don't want to consider yourself a part of that large binary system but can't you see that you are creating a new one?

you divide women of your lesbian world into 2 groups, saying it's okay to be feminine and wear makeup and be submissive to your butch girlfriend, but I'll break it into you: it's really okay to be feminine and want to be taken care of, but the fact that you correspond your personal traits with a sexist concept of women's gender is fucking stupid. there's nothing feminine in submission, make-up, cooking and washing dishes, that's a fucking ancient stereotype about women and please don't bring that shit into lesbian spaces.

nobody fucking cares if you have long hair and mascara on your eyes, you don't have to say 'im a sub femme' because nobody gives a fuck

why should we, as proud lesbians describe ourselves as masculine and feminine when those descriptions are packed with sexist assumptions about how one should behave....

[haggishlyhagging]

It has been said that female separatism is radical feminism's natural and logical conclusion. Most radical feminists have chosen not to follow their politics all the way to that end and do what they can to avoid, ignore, or deny it. Anti-separatist feminists engage in what has been called "thought termination," meaning the act of refusing to follow one's own thoughts to their logical conclusions, in order to justify their decision to stay connected to males. They also encourage this thought termination in other women, wanting to undermine female separatism as a legitimate political and personal choice for their own selfish reasons.

When making political and feminist analysis or when attempting to determine in your own life if a particular decision is feminist or anti-feminist, it is useful to ask the ancient Roman legal question: "Cui bono?" or "Who benefits?" Of course, women do stand to gain certain rewards and privileges from engaging in male loyalism, misogyny, and anti-feminist actions, but whatever the matter at hand, an anti-feminist and anti-female decision will ultimately benefit males the most. When we ask "Who benefits the most?" from women and girls choosing to lead male-inclusive and male-centric lives, the answer is clear: males do.

The most recent studies have found that heterosexual marriage makes men happier and women more unhappy overall. The overwhelming majority of domestic labor and childcare continue to fall on the wife's shoulders in heterosexual marriage throughout the developed world, and this is true even while most married heterosexual women in developed countries work full-time throughout adulthood. Heterosexual and bisexual women openly admit to experiencing sex in their heterosexual relationships that ranges from inorgasmic and boring to violent, humiliating, and painful. Outside of heterosexual relationships, women and girls often find themselves on the losing side of unequal relationships with male family members and friends who take advantage of their labor, emotional and otherwise, and do not reciprocate or bother suppressing their sexism.

The power struggle between males and females has always been sexual, both in the carnal and reproductive sense. Even the word patriarchy rests on the sexual, social, and familial arrangements that exist in a predominantly heterosexual, mixed society where men and women live in constant contact with each other: rule of the father assumes that women and girls are in a position to be ruled, both socially and physically. It assumes the presence of a man.

Female separatism is the unavoidable, ultimate conclusion of radical feminist politics for the simple reason that separatism alone prevents the male objective driving men's oppression and domination of the female sex: using women and girls as sexual, domestic, social, and economic resources. If this is the point of patriarchy, how can anything other than female separatism be the solution to it? In a system where males already have all the power and control, women and girls will never be able to change their own status or achieve liberation from oppression through cooperating with males and granting them everything they demand.

Males want sexual access to female bodies above all else, and furthermore, they rely on women and girls to perform the domestic labor, social labor, and professional labor that keep men comfortable physically, emotionally, and psychologically. For thousands of years, men universally made sure that women and girls could not survive independently of them by locking us out of education, paid work, and the political arena and refusing to give us basic rights to own money and property. They knew and feared that if women had the option to survive and thrive apart from men, most of us would choose to do exactly that.

The only reason women now have the legal rights and protections that allow us to reject heterosexual marriage and motherhood is because we fought hard for those rights and protections over the course of at least a hundred years in developed countries, and we are still fighting all over the world, not only to gain what we lack but to protect what we have. Men have never yielded any political concessions to women willingly, easily, or readily. They have resisted us every step of the way, and they will never cease their attempts to take back the progress we've made.

If female separatism was of no consequence to the male sex, they wouldn't have spent all of recorded history making it virtually impossible. They wouldn't now be going out of their way to destroy any and all female-only spaces, both physical and digital, in the name of transgenderism. They would not have lorded physical and sexual violence over us since the beginning of time as punishment for our resistance and disobedience.

-Sekhmet She-Owl, “Female Separatism: The Feminist Solution” in Spinning And Weaving: Radical Feminism for the 21st Century

[aroaessidhe]

okay I was asked about fey books I’ve read that Do stick to folklore a bit more than certain popular books - and actually looking at what fey books I’ve read  it’s a bit like.... books that stick to folklore closely I sometimes Don’t Love, and there are others that don’t stick to it as much but I like the overall narrative more? or some mix of that. 

so here’s a list of a few - a range of how much they stick to folklore (which of course is an amorphous thing) and how much I like them, but it’s something!

YA

That Self-Same Metal - literally just read this, it’s about a Black girl who’s the stage blade expert for shakespeare’s company and can see fey, and they’re appearing more and more in the city. explores a bit of the midsummer night’s dream fey but also like “shakespeare was wrong” and general folklore. definitely the start of a series and has a lot going on but I thought it has some cool ideas!

all Holly Black’s books deal with them well! the Modern Faerie Tales companion/trilogy has maybe aged a bit by now, and I hate way the romance ended up together in The Folk of the Air (and the way the fandom is about it) but otherwise I do really like how it deals with fey and politics! also enjoyed The Darkest Part of the Forest. these are all intertwined/same world

The Buried And The Bound - a hedgewitch girl keeps fey away from her town, and gets caught up with two boys who are cursed. mostly deals with minor fey and a powerful hag

An Enchantment of Ravens - it’s been quite a few years since I read this, but I do remember enjoying it. It is a bit more of a romance focused story also, an artist stolen into the fey realm for painting a fey prince as if he was human(iirc?)

The Bone Houses - not directly dealing with fey, but like the aftermath of the ancient fey’s curses? welsh myth inspired. which I think is cool.

At The Edge of The Woods - about a girl in a religious/patriarchial village who starts to have strange dreams about a fey boy luring her into the woods. it’s not super focused on them, but they’re very much the classic ‘dangerous fey stealing people away for entertainment’ kind of thing

Adult

Emily Wilde’s Encyclopaedia of Faeries - I sort of have mixed feelings about this - I really enjoy how it dealt with fey and the creepier folklore creatures side of it! the handling of the changeling was a bit iffy and not sure about the romance

The Wolf Among the Wild Hunt - dark fantasy novella about a wolf-shifter made to join the wild hunt to save his qpr. focused on the unseelie/wild hunt area

Silver in the Wood - gaslamp fantasy novella about the keeper of a magical forest, dryads and dangerous fey

The Wind City - a bit of a mashup of fey folklore and Māori atua in a modern NZ setting

Sinners/Veiled - very classic but also with the element of a modern setting where human pollution is like a drug to fey (and the MC is a drug lord.) (so kind of dark but also not dark in the sexy way bc the MC is aroace)

Under The Pendulum Sun - this is a gothic fantasy that has a bit of a new take on a fey world, but also definitely has some of those creepy folklore vibes.

Siren Queen - this only partly involves fey but I thought the way that it mashed up old hollywood and fey (aka shady deals for fame themes) was interesting!

Sorcerer to the Crown/The True Queen - my memory on this is hazy, but I believe it’s regency fantasy, with its own take on a fey world/magic (moreso the 2nd book)

Malice/Misrule - adult high fantasy lesbian sleeping beauty reimagining, this is kind of doing it’s own thing I guess (I don’t remember if they’re even called fey?) but definitely has a bit of the creepy creature/court vibes in book 2 especially

In The Jaded Grove - I was just looking up books to see if there was anything I missed and found this, which seems interesting to me!

I also haven’t read Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell (but I watched the show ages ago) and I believe that has the vibe too

[molter-writes]

pleeeasssee miller i know you let the work stand on it's own but please tell us jsut a tad bit more about the valyerian sex magic!!!!

i meannnn

on valyrian sex magic

i am not the person to ask for the true asoiaf lore, of course; but there is obviously a pervasive source of magic across Planetos — accessible by many cultures in many different forms — and the "flavour" of the magic of each is very much a reflection, i think, of what GRRM wants us to glean about each. the Starks are themselves effectively the oldest singular consistent human organisation, if you will, that we actually meet in the books, and their magic is extremely rudimentary and primordial—they turn into animals and talk to trees. It's giving primordial man, it's giving Lucy—humanity as a symbiotic participant in (rather than an editor of) the natural world.

fast forward almost five thousand years: the valyrians are not tree hugging hunter-gatherers. they are the roman empire if the roman empire were composed of evil wizards. Their magic is dark, rooted in blood and fire—it was a tool of mind control, of asymmetric warfare, of wroth destruction. It required blood sacrifice and whips and horns and knives. It mated slave women to animals to produce grotesque chimeras. The entire thing is about the subjugation, not the embrace, of nature. Obviously until we have WoW or (lol) aDoS, we won't know—and maybe not even then—but the best prevailing theory in my view is that blood of the dragon is literal. Planetos has wyverns and, more importantly, firewyrms (flightless, firebreathing lizards) that the Valyrians almost certainly combined with human beings in some ritualistic hellcurse to produce the first dragons. this explains (1) the psychogenic bond between rider and dragon; (2) why nobody without valyrian blood can ride one; (3) the decline of the dragons correlating near-perfectly with the Andalisation (read: de-magifying) of the Targaryens; and perhaps most importantly, (4) why an animal that can fly hundreds of miles in a day would for some reason be found only on a single small isle in some random corner of a massive content that has volcanos and mountains and hot weather elsewhere. only one culture having dragons is like only one airport having planes.

much like the american NRA often asserts about guns, dragons are something of a sexual equaliser. part of why rhaenyra is so much freer than alicent when they're young is not merely because of her elevated social station (which is a principal part of it, yes) but also because she is in sole possession of one of the only six nukes in the world. At fifteen Rhaenyra possesses the power to go burn Riverrun to its foundation. I mean, if you thought Daenerys had firepower—regardless of D&D's absolute boneheaded visual mistakes in the show—Syrax is bigger than Drogon.

in any case i digress; i bring this up to make the point that while we do know valyria was a patriarchy of sorts, you can imagine a world in which a valyrian noble house would be headed (on occasion) by a woman because she is the most powerful imperial military leader because she is in command of the largest dragon. as a result, you can imagine a culture that embraces less patriarchal sexual and gender politics than do the Andals, and when take this inference a step further with the chimeras and the dragon-making and all the other frankensteinian blood magic, i just don't think it's that much of a leap to imagine that some dragon-wielding all-powerful female ruthless blood wizard in ancient Valyria decided—based on blood purity or necessity or ego or whatever—to impregnate some other woman. some maesters recorded that dragons appeared to change their sex—becoming able and unable to lay and fertilise eggs. Anyway, I just don't put genderbending and fempreg past the people who—if the theory is right—invented fucking dragons. It seems easier to do magic pregnancy than to do dragons. idk. melisandre gave birth to a shadow. nearly every ancient tradition on the planet can explore the miracle of virgin conception but we can't have lesbo baby?? why?? thank you for coming to my Ted Talk

[princesssarisa]

Character ask: Queen Esther

Favorite thing about them: Her courage and selflessness when she risks her life to save her people, and her cleverness in the way she uses flattery, entertainment, and well-chosen wording to maneuver the villainous Haman into a vulnerable position and turn her royal husband against him.

Least favorite thing about them: I suppose the fact that at first she's reluctant to approach the king without being summoned and come out as Jewish to him. Of course it's natural that she's afraid to risk her life, but still, thousands of other people's lives are on the line and she almost chooses to protect herself rather than them.

Three things I have in common with them:

*I'm part Jewish.

*I'm often afraid to reveal my Jewish heritage in public.

*I often wear purple – most mass-produced Queen Esther costumes for Purim seem to dress her in purple, since it was associated with royalty in the ancient world.

Three things I don't have in common with them:

*I'm not married to a king.

*I'm not an orphan.

*I've never been to the Middle East.

Favorite line:

Her instructions to Mordecai when she agrees to speak to the king on the Jews' behalf:

"Go, gather together all the Jews who are in Susa, and fast for me. Do not eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my attendants will fast as you do. When this is done, I will go to the king, even though it is against the law. And if I perish, I perish.”

Her reveal of her Jewish heritage to her husband, with its clever rhetoric of saying that she and her people are threatened, arousing her husband's protective outrage, before she reveals that by this she means Haman's planned genocide of the Jews that her husband had blindly agreed to:

“If I have found favor with you, Your Majesty, and if it pleases you, grant me my life—this is my petition. And spare my people—this is my request. For I and my people have been sold to be destroyed, killed and annihilated."

brOTP: Her cousin and foster father Mordecai.

OTP: Well, I have to say her husband King Ahasuerus, though it's hardly a modern love match, and though there are plenty of valid reasons to loathe him and wish Esther could leave him. If not for their marriage, she couldn't have saved her people.

nOTP: Haman.

Random headcanon: I accept the Talmudic tradition that she was a vegetarian rather than eat non-kosher meat in her husband's palace, but not the tradition that she lived on only legumes and seeds. While I understand the appeal of saying "Out of virtue and piety she turned down the most tempting dishes in favor of plain, simple food," that's not a balanced diet, and Persian cuisine has so many wonderful vegetable dishes she could have chosen from!

Unpopular opinion: I don't think she and Queen Vashti need to be pitted against each other. While I don't like the tradition of vilifying Vashti in order to glorify Esther as the superior, deserving replacement, neither do I think admiring Vashti's courage and defiance means we should look down on Esther for being "docile and submissive" or "complicit with the patriarchy." After all, it's by finally breaking the rules that Esther saves her people, and ironically, despite having banished Vashti for her disobedience and chosen Esther as a suitably docile replacement, Ahasuerus obeys Esther's will in the end. I admire and sympathize with both women and see Vashti as ultimately vindicated by Esther.

Song I associate with them: Well, it's mainly a song about Haman, not Esther, but I have to choose this popular silly children's song for Purim, "A Wicked, Wicked Man." It's the song I most associate with the holiday.

Favorite picture of them:

These various paintings.

[creature-wizard]

What Is Conspirituality? A Primer.

Whatever your spiritual beliefs are (or aren't), something you need to be aware of is conspirituality - that is, a spiritual worldview that incorporates conspiracy theories.

Any (and I do mean any; there are no exceptions) form of spirituality can turn into conspirituality. Some forms of spirituality even use conspiracy theories as a foundation for their views.

Conspirituality is very common in far right Christianity, typically manifesting as a belief that world is secretly controlled or beleaguered by a secret society of devil worshipers. Europe's witch hunts and the Satanic Panic were driven by this worldview. The people who subscribe to this usually believe that everything they find threatening is the literal work of Satan and his followers.

It also comes up in neopagan spirituality from time to time. An example of this is the belief that Christianity was created to suppress the worship of a great mother goddess, and thus create patriarchy. In reality, cultures like Greece and Rome were already patriarchal, even though they worshiped a number of goddesses. (This doesn't mean that we should just accept that patriarchy is the natural state of things and give into it, but it does mean that we have to understand that fighting it is a little more complicated than popularizing the Divine Feminine or something.)

New Age spirituality is rife with conspiracism; in fact, its entire mythology is fundamentally conspiratorial. For example, it claims that Atlantis was real and the gods were actually aliens that visited us in ancient times, but this has been covered up by a faction of malevolent aliens who secretly control the world in order to exploit us. Many people don't realize that "aliens built it" was an idea proposed by white people who were resistant to the idea that ancient POC were intelligent enough to build things on their own, who had to ignore and distort a lot of evidence to try and support it. They don't realize that this whole idea of secret malevolent forces controlling the world comes out of the far right Christian playbook.

If you want to learn more about recognizing conspiracy theories in spirituality, I recommend checking out my post, Is the spiritual person a conspiracy theorist? A list of red flags.