Sandra Morgan2 said:N'Dug Asks:
And that brings us right back to the core dilemma of feminism—and spirituality, too. Can a beautiful woman actually be a feminist or a nun? Does it even make sense? I mean, from the moment she’s born, those gates to earthly paradise are wide open to her, with the entire male population constantly looking her way. Does the concept even hold water despite all that?
It all comes down to what someone is chasing: a little slice of heaven on earth or true self-realization. If a woman seeks nothing but the constant attention and admiration of men, she’s feeding her ego—and let me tell you, that comes at a steep price. It requires massive investments (both time and money) just to maintain that youthful glow as the years pass. So, what’s the actual payoff? A smart woman won't fall into the trap of relying solely on her looks. She’ll know how to distinguish between what actually matters and what's just a superficial game. That’s why, when you ask if a beautiful woman can be a feminist, a nun, or a Zen monk, you have to start with the assumption that there’s more to her than just a pretty face. There has to be substance there—something deep enough to drive her toward a meaningful cause or a spiritual path.
"Quote:"| Lately, we've been seeing Angelina Jolie stepping up as this big advocate for human rights and protecting abused children... Honestly? It all feels like a bit of a performance. It seems more about using that beautiful face and body to grab headlines rather than offering any real spiritual substance. |
.
Sure, she might grab all the headlines, but let’s look at the facts: she adopted three children from Africa and donated massive amounts of money to fund education, improve living conditions, and provide medical care for kids in impoverished African nations. The real issue? Her angelic nature gets completely overlooked because people are too distracted by her celebrity status and sex appeal. But honestly, it doesn't matter. Those who actually bother to look past the physical surface can see that she—like so many others—is proof that goodness still exists in this world, no matter how bleak things may seem.
On the flip side, it would be hard to take them seriously if they were stepping into the shoes of Mother Teresa—who, God rest her soul, was a physically unattractive woman, a real Baba Jaga type—but you could easily imagine them playing Diana or some fertility goddess. Does a woman’s physical appearance actually dictate the specific type of spirituality she can embody? I suspect feminists would absolutely lose their minds if that were actually true... though, honestly, maybe it is. 😍
No, you’re right—nobody would take her seriously if she were actually hot or conventionally beautiful. Usually, women tend to follow paths centered around devotion to some male deity (like Christ, Krishna, or Sherwin) or surrender themselves to some guru. It’s much rarer to see someone like Sandra Morgan2, who is also quite beautiful, following non-dual teachings instead. 🙂
Does anyone think there was ever a society in written history where women actually held the reins? I’m talking about a true matriarchy. And please, let’s leave the Amazons out of this—they're clearly just a product of myth and imagination. Does anyone here actually know of a real-world example?
I’ve been thinking... what does it all actually mean? If a matriarchy has never truly existed—if every society up to this point has been patriarchal—then we have to look at the facts. In the West, over these last few hundred years, we've seen more justice for women than ever before in history. And honestly, as much as I might struggle with certain feminist methods, you have to admit they played a massive role in getting us here.
If you look at actual recorded history, the whole idea of a matriarchy is basically a myth. In reality, women were mostly treated like pieces of movable furniture, nothing more than manual labor or breeding stock. They were essentially property—owned by fathers, husbands, or brothers who could trade them for livestock, swap them for cash, or just toss them out on the street whenever they felt like it based on whatever local custom or "law" was in place at the time. It wasn't uncommon for things to escalate to physical abuse or permanent injury... it was just how the system functioned back then.
Let’s take a much deeper dive into the past... In many animal packs, it’s actually the alpha female who calls the shots. She picks the partner, leads the hunt, decides when the group migrates, and even dictates the social hierarchy of the rest of the pack. We're talking about apex predators at the very top of the food chain here—situations where the offspring aren't under immediate threat, so the whole "ensuring the survival of the species" argument isn't even the primary driver... think wolves or hyenas...
The dynamic with lions is a bit different... The lioness pretty much runs the whole show—handling the hunt, organizing the strategy, keeping an eye on the cubs—yet she still shows this quiet, respectful deference to the male, letting him take the first bite of the antelope. She’ll even carefully move the little ones out of the way when the boss decides it's time to retreat into the shade. Why? It's simply because in the Serengeti, those cubs are constantly exposed to danger, which creates a need for a harem structure. The male lion essentially lives like a sultan with his queens and concubines; he spreads his lineage far and wide, fulfills his sacred duty to reproduce, and once he’s driven the young males off into solitude, he can finally focus on just being the king of his domain...
Even with those fast legs, fawns—whether you're looking at deer, antelope, or zebras—just aren't ready to outrun a predator right out of the gate. It’s why nature relies on sheer numbers; you need a massive surplus just to offset the inevitable losses... It brings to mind that frantic, arrogant billionaire type, greedily hoarding and fertilizing his harem while kicking out anyone who actually shows a bit of genuine interest...
Take bonobos, for instance—they’re basically our closest biological and social cousins in the primate world. Because food is easy to come by and they're fairly large, the whole male-female power dynamic stays pretty balanced. Research actually shows that female bonobos are just as promiscuous as the males. It’s almost like a "free love" vibe where everyone mixes with everyone... provided the entire group steps up to look after the kids. You might have one mother watching her little one while someone else jumps in to teach them how to dig for worms or watch out for snakes. Then you’ve got chimpanzees, who are a lot more aggressive. The males tend to run the show there. Since chimps are smaller and physically weaker, their main survival strategy is often just running away... which unfortunately leaves the offspring to fend for themselves. And then there are gorillas, whose lives are dictated by food availability. They need massive territories, so they focus on maintaining a harem and ensuring plenty of offspring to keep the lineage going. A silverback gorilla is a hell of a protector for his group, though... definitely takes the job seriously.
So, because the forests started thinning out and gave way to more open savanna, our dear primate ancestors were basically forced to stretch their legs a bit... had to go out and hunt for new ways to find food and maybe some decent shelter. At that specific stage of human evolution, everyone was pretty much just looking out for themselves. There wasn't any concept of splitting the kill or checking in on the weaker members of the group who ended up going hungry... it was just survival of the fittest, I guess...
It wasn't exactly by choice, really. Circumstances just forced our hand. A need for a different way of life emerged because our ancestors slowly realized that if they stayed caught between the savanna and the woods, they were basically dead meat—starving, defenseless, too slow to run away, and way too weak to hunt or fight back... In that desperate struggle just to find enough food and keep their bare lives from slipping away, they ended up neglecting reproduction. Hm. Not exactly a glowing forecast for the future...
So, they eventually figured out ways to make catching game a lot easier, and they made sure to find decent shelter. They realized it was much simpler to just call the animals out from the tall grass rather than hunting them down through dense brush. Labor division started to drift toward physical strength over time, mostly because the pack became more tightly knit through individual interdependence. The females were busy gathering berries, keeping the fires going, raising the kids, teaching them the ropes, communicating, passing down knowledge, making sure bears didn't eat them, making sure bears didn't eat the kids, and also watching out for those famous hunters showing up with mammoth legs. Multitasking. We've all been there, right...
And that’s exactly why—because they were the ones collecting and passing on all that knowledge—mothers became the central axis around which the whole tribe revolved. While the men handled the hunts and some of the technical ideas, the women took care of everything else. Because of that, they were respected. They were the shamans, the teachers, the caregivers, the scouts; their word carried weight, just as much as the word of a smart, capable man. During that era, we see the first evidence of female-centric cults being honored (Mother Earth, the parent, the provider), and it wasn't until much later, with the discovery of metalworking, that the cult of the male principle emerged (think ram or fire cults). Physical differences led to different roles, sure, but there was still an equal sense of importance and dignity. There isn't really any evidence that one gender was favored over the other back then...
The first signs of ownership and dominance over women showed up once surplus value appeared. Once we transitioned into partial agriculture and domesticated animals, the guy who was physically strong or just lucky enough to grow extra grain or breed more lambs (which ensured his own kids were fed and numerous) suddenly had more material to trade. He got richer. And subsequently, more arrogant. He teamed up with guys just like him, formed the first military units, hunting became a smaller source of food, and he needed a way to burn off all that testosterone. So, he got greedy and wanted what others had. More. Larger territories. More food. More people surrounding him for protection. Women were pushed to the sidelines...
Sorry for this massive wall of text. 😢
