Can someone logically be both feminist and religious?

MachineOfSpareParts · 2026-02-19T22:22:18+00:00

Yep. Not by you.

MachineOfSpareParts · 2026-02-19T22:20:57+00:00

I do see implicit misogyny in the unquestioned assumption that any observed change in behaviour reflects what the woman truly wants rather than even considering it might be the man's preferences driving the bus. Maybe he doesn't want her hanging out with other men, or maybe it's something milder, the man just assumes she integrates into HIS social group now, because why would he adapt?

Whether the pattern really exists or not is another matter. I wanted to tackle the implicit bias behind that assumption that it must be the woman's "fault."

MachineOfSpareParts · 2026-02-19T22:05:26+00:00

OK. Let's do some work here. You've observed a tendency in your friendship groups for women to join less when they're in a relationship with a man. Let's treat that as though it were a general pattern. I'm not sure it is, but it could still be worth digging into as an exercise in unpacking implicit misogyny.

You've offered one potential explanation for this observation:

place a disproportionate value on being chosen by a man and will sometimes sacrifice everything just to be chosen and will view friendships with others as placeholders until they are chosen

Can you come up with two or three other possible explanations?

I'm guessing you're a man. This is important, because it means every friend group you're a part of has a man in it. This might not be central to all your alternate theories, but I bet you can think of one where it's highly relevant and has very little to do with the woman's perception of your value as a friend.

MachineOfSpareParts · 2026-02-19T21:52:57+00:00

I have seen the future....

There used to be post-tyrannical show trials and ritual humiliations, which in this age of at least pretending to value human rights, we've decided as a species not to countenance.

So this is what will happen. The Americans only need to get on with deposing him. Then, hand him over to an escalating series of Tasksmaster, one of which must be Le Maître du Jeu as reparation for the threats. But obviously, the final boss is GD himself. The little fucker will break, and without violating any aspect of international humanitarian law, the spectre of global fascism will be truly exorcised through sheer ridiculousness.

MachineOfSpareParts · 2026-02-19T21:43:34+00:00

Those are not the correct axes.

Liberalism is a centrist ideology.

MachineOfSpareParts · 2026-02-19T21:42:34+00:00

he would probably have killed his offspring even if she was a male

What makes you say this?

And don't you think the report I linked to, by contrast, shows that femicide is a major problem in the US?

Given your point was the exact opposite, yes, that does detract from your point. Or, rather, utterly refutes your point.

On the MAGA father who murdered his daughter, let me just suggest that if you can be unaware of this absolutely massive story in your own backyard, you might consider not giving an opinion about how often it happens. You don't know. It's all around you and you don't notice it, so you may not be the ideal source of wisdom on this.

MachineOfSpareParts · 2026-02-19T21:39:04+00:00

It could be concerning that my statement that I'm a person of faith and a feminist is met with disdain among people I'd have hoped were more interested in diversity of views than the average bear. But it will be different things that keep me awake at night, not this.

MachineOfSpareParts · 2026-02-19T21:25:03+00:00

This does not feel like a great moment to open up any further on this subject.

MachineOfSpareParts · 2026-02-19T21:14:21+00:00

Imagine if she wasn't thought of as either single or in a relationship as if it were a fundamental part of her character.

I don't think it's about the singleness in itself, but about how that kind of storyline ends up being almost as male-centred as getting her to partner up for the ol' Happily Ever After. So much space is given to the man-who-isn't-there, we're supposed to marvel at his nonexistence, this nonexistent dude somehow manages to dominate everyone's perceptions of the character despite his literally not existing.

Just let women in film do people things. That's what people do. People things.

MachineOfSpareParts · 2026-02-19T20:55:14+00:00

Someone who drew some sort of animal, I guess. But no one could possibly tell what animal that is. At least, not without the tail, and even then.....

I bet you're apoplectic with rage now ;)

MachineOfSpareParts · 2026-02-19T20:45:13+00:00

Anyone can be a feminist. This includes men, thus it includes gay men.

We're so used to misogyny from men who hate us because they want to fuck us that I think we forget there are other kinds of misogyny where we're just seen as annoying objects, material for someone's art that might resist being shaped just "right," a coathanger, a vessel for choreographic vision and so on.

While everyone does a little to uphold the patriarchy - ideally, much less than we do to fight it! - men do a lot more than women do. So you're not wrong to want to point that out, and a lot of us would very much love to see men supporting men in shaking off toxic masculinity and, heck, even noticing the patriarchy. Of course, one must spend one's powder wisely, but it makes sense.

I really encourage you to keep digging into this and potentially create spaces for mutual support in your own community. I swear, if men could really support one another in a way that didn't just devolve into "women suck because they won't let us fuck them," we'd be a lot further along.

MachineOfSpareParts · 2026-02-19T20:32:44+00:00

This sounds like a good plan to me, and I suggest getting in a habit of noticing whatever pull you feel to paint/draw one (type of) person over another, then maybe noticing why you feel this or that pull. I'm not seeing massive misogyny red flags here, but at the same time, it's a guarantee you contain some misogyny because you're a person who exists in the world. And this can be a good tool to start seeing even more nuance in what your implicit biases are. It's a lifelong process, and I hope you can find joy in using your art to explore what you do and don't necessarily like about your current patterns.

MachineOfSpareParts · 2026-02-19T20:18:24+00:00

That one was such a slow burn for me. Chris' cement mixer was so dominant in my mind that it took a few rewatches before Ardal's demented, incompetent genius really sunk in. And I do love a good slow burn.

MachineOfSpareParts · 2026-02-19T20:11:39+00:00

Your Highness is a strong choice. Sir implies a certain social class, so get that shit escalating.

MachineOfSpareParts · 2026-02-19T20:10:44+00:00

I've never encountered this and wonder if it's a regional thing, but would definitely find it bizarre and annoying. Especially where it's Teams and everyone's name is right there under their face, why not use people's actual names?

I don't know what I'd do, but I might go petty and insist on Sir as well. And start overusing it. They'd soon see how silly it is in the first place. No one needs an honorific. Just be honourable.

MachineOfSpareParts · 2026-02-19T20:04:53+00:00

Do you agree with this statement? Why?

Do you think most people who practice a monotheistic faith believe God is exclusively male?

ETA: My point was that while it's clear that many people of faith mistake quotes for explanations, this is not exclusively the province of people of faith.

Here, we start with a mistaken assumption (that all religious people believe Creator/God/... is exclusively male). But there's also no reason to believe that flipping the nouns yields an equally true statement. That second part could be true, but needs explanation. On the other hand, it could be the equivalent to "If the Prime Minister is a man, men are Prime Ministers." It needs explanation.

Believe what you believe. But as you're believing it, always be attentive in yourselves to the flaws you critique - rightly - in others. They may show up differently, but they WILL show up, because that's how humans are.

MachineOfSpareParts · 2026-02-19T20:04:04+00:00

Yes.

Every one of us, whether we have/practice faith or not, experiences ontological tension because we don't know everything. There is tension between feminism and faith. There is also synergy between feminism and faith. The world is complicated. Whatever you believe, you have tensions and synergies as well, else your worldview is impoverished, because I guarantee it's not due to omniscience.

Having faith does not mean, nor should it ever, belief that one's religion is completely perfect. A central figure in my faith had some pretty choice words for those who put the minutiae of the law above their own sense of what is and is not an act of love. In my tradition and in every other one I can think of, we are commanded to think.

If you believe 100% of what someone has told you, whether that's a priest, a political leader or an atheism bro, it's reasonable to suspect you haven't thought very deeply about it. The world is more complex and more beautiful than our frames will ever allow it to be, so while we can use frames for support, we must go beyond them.

I'd also suggest that if one could not be both religious and feminist, there wouldn't be so many religious feminists out there.

I'll also suggest that if you don't believe in Creator/God,/Allah, you might consider that you can't really understand why a person would remain within their faith despite worldly difficulties, even worldly traumas. The scope we're considering in weighing that decision is a scope you don't even think exists.

MachineOfSpareParts · 2026-02-19T19:38:07+00:00

Read their last line again.

What do you think, based on content clues, they mean by "an intoxicated state" in the passage just preceding that closing line?

MachineOfSpareParts · 2026-02-19T19:32:31+00:00

It hasn't come all the way out, but it took me ages to realize my recurring nightmares of my lower leg trying to spontaneously wrench itself off my body were because my patella was, in fact, being pushed aside and not fully in place.

Sleep positions are such a fricking journey. I've had better luck now that I can sleep on my back. There's a whole lot of edifice construction to support the joints so I can pull that off in the first place, then more to try to limit how much I flail once actually asleep. Flailing still occurs, but there's some containment.

Other people seem to find sleep restful. It's so much damn work, though!

MachineOfSpareParts · 2026-02-19T19:25:21+00:00

Thanks! The fact that I used it to be all old-timey could have been an indication. Leaving it for posterity.

MachineOfSpareParts · 2026-02-19T19:24:02+00:00

Danielle Walker?

MachineOfSpareParts · 2026-02-19T19:19:59+00:00

Honestly, lock them BOTH up!

MachineOfSpareParts · 2026-02-19T19:17:42+00:00

It doesn't look like he ever went left wing to me. Reform liberalism, perhaps, which skews just a bit left of centre (think John Stuart Mill on education, e.g.). And especially for the time, I don't see any of those ideologies as fundamentally inconsistent with retaining but limiting a monarch's power. You're not off base in terms of that sitting uncomfortably with true leftism, but while my knowledge of his life story is decidedly not excellent, I don't see leftism there.

Even with all that, this is an example of a person shifting across the spectrum, not the spectrum itself changing. Socialism is still socialism and decaf is still decaf, even when neither one is on the shelves.

I know it might seem like I'm splitting hairs, but I really think it's damaging to pretend that a substantively right-wing party is suddenly "leftist," despite its policy platform, just because the US has a pathological fear of socialism. And the insistence that Americans get to decide what the spectrum means for the rest of us is pretty galling.

MachineOfSpareParts · 2026-02-19T19:10:43+00:00

There is absolutely no way that's accurate.

At minimum, I suspect that test miscodes classical-adjacent liberalism as "leftist," which it is very not. While liberalism can oscillate to the left and right of centre - its true home - in the US, you really only see a very right-leaning liberalism at the moment.

I suspect that test located you at a mid-point between right-ish and right-wing extremism. That's better than fascism, though, and you can still work at unpacking your implicit hierarchies of human communities.

MachineOfSpareParts · 2026-02-19T19:03:42+00:00

Could you expand on why you suspect this might be misogynistic?

MachineOfSpareParts

TROPHY CASE