this post was submitted on 08 Jul 2025
523 points (92.2% liked)

Witches VS Patriarchy

799 readers
379 users here now

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
QueenMidna@lemmy.ca
523
They deffo don't (infosec.pub)
submitted 2 weeks ago by LadyButterfly@reddthat.com to c/witchesvspatriarchy@lemmy.ca
48 comments fedilink hide all child comments
all 49 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] vaguerant@fedia.io 142 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

Sorry to go all Godwin's law, but astrology can and has been used as a tool of oppression. Nazi Germany had a state-sponsored astrologer, Karl Ernst Krafft, appointed by Deputy Führer Rudolf Hess and Chief Propagandist Joseph Goebbels. Krafft was employed to write astrological propaganda that justified anti-semitism on the basis of celestial events. He was also tasked with using astrological observations to predict threats to the Führer Adolf Hitler and offer military advice.

Ultimately, it's not the stars and Moon that do the oppression, just whoever is in charge of divining their meaning, which is also pretty much how religious oppression works.

[–] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 38 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It's almost as if certain types of people want to be assholes but want an irrefutable entity to say it's okay.

[–] nanoswarm9k@lemmus.org 13 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Never trust someone else's imaginary friend over one's own.

[–] otter@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Here's a thought: go one further. Kill all gods & masters.

[–] HikingVet@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

We will only be free when the last monarch is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.

[–] otter@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 2 weeks ago

Repair world hunger with a woodchipper & fertilizer tumbler... Yeet The Rich.

[–] nanoswarm9k@lemmus.org 2 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Eh not giving up my kinks, but everyone needs to have the right to say no or it's not fun.

(sorry, the homebrewed anamist theism is too fun right now, and i got a puppy boy that's counting on me so... upvotes for thoroughness and enthusiasm)

[–] otter@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 weeks ago

Religion has been the single most detrimental invention of humankind since civilization's dawn.

To the other point, since nearly that same catalyzing point in our history, undying Truth itself can be found in the loving eyes of a goodest boy. (source: my own life has been saved by one on more than a few occasions and ways. 🙇🏼‍♂️🐕🥰)

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

Religion is a lot like genitals, enjoy yours in places that people are cool with that happening but only share them with the willing and don't be an asshole just because someone else's are different.

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 13 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Nancy Reagan had an astrologer.

[–] PrimeMinisterKeyes@leminal.space 7 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Nancy Reagan has an astrologer.

Does he pack a shovel if she calls him?

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

Changed my verb tense. :)

[–] outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 weeks ago

Reagan too. Basically his whole second term was just his astrologer.

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Religion, as in faith in God, doesn't oppress anyone. Religion, the institution, oppresses people. If astrology had a comparable institution, it would absolutely oppress people.

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 9 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Faith oppresses the believer himself because it requires a willingness to believe in things without proof. It's like saying AIDS doesn't kill people because it merely weakens their immune system. Astrology believers are primed to believe anything, and often get scammed by their astrologers.

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works -4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It's like saying AIDS doesn't kill people because it merely weakens their immune system.

Which is accurate. It's the infection or cancer that kills you, like the priest or the astrologer oppresses you. The belief might make you more susceptible to oppression, but it's not what's oppressing you.

[–] MotoAsh@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

So you don't understand what he's saying... interesting.

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

They don't understand what I'm saying. Oppression is a specific phenomenon. Becoming susceptible to oppression is not the same thing as being oppressed.

[–] MotoAsh@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

No one is saying aids isn't deadly/dangerous here except you.

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I never said it wasn't dangerous.

[–] MotoAsh@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

"Which is accurate. It's the infection or cancer that kills you." That's you. That's what you said.

It's like you'd disagree that being a tight rope walker could lead to a higher risk of plumeting to ones' death, yet you're so preoccupied with being correct that you refuse to acknowledge the reality of the situation... sad.

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 weeks ago

"Which is accurate. It's the infection or cancer that kills you." That's you. That's what you said.

Yes. I said that AIDS itself doesn't kill you. In fact these days it's much more manageable with modern treatment. I never said it didn't raise your risk of dying from something else, obviously, that's the main thing it does.

It's like you'd disagree that being a tight rope walker could lead to a higher risk of plumeting to ones' death

I'd say that tight rope walking doesn't kill you. I used to go to the rock climbing gym all the time, and there was a slack line there constantly being used and I never saw anyone die on it. Tight rope walking isn't all that dangerous, any more than any other moderate athletic act. Tight rope walking 50 feet above the ground is dangerous, but I'd also argue that being on a tight rope 50 feet above the ground is drastically safer than being in the exact same point in space minus the tight rope.

Because that's exactly what this AIDS analogy is ignoring. Yeah, it can easily make an easily oppressed person more materially oppressed if it leads them into the influence of religious oppressors. But it can also be a source of fortitude and resilience against those very oppressors. Martin Luther is a fantastic example, his devotion gave him the resolve to call out the Catholic Church for its oppressive bullshit.

Rubes are gonna be rubes. If it's not a religious institution, it'll be an MLM or an NFT grift or a political party or something. Religion, the faith, isn't oppressing anyone any more than franchise owners or cyber security nerds or political activists. That is the reality of the situation.

[–] Samskara@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Faith in good doesn’t need organized religion. That’s just being spiritual.

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago

This is an area where terminology gets real fuzzy. "Spiritual" is inherently vague and individualistic. I'm referring more to personal faith in a particular sect: read specific texts, pray in a particular way, organize your metaphysical model in line with an established religious tradition.

Generally I don't like to reference specific religious texts, my beliefs are much too syncretic for that, but I was raised Christian, and for all the faults of the various Christian institutions, Jesus himself seems pretty based:

And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full.

But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

If someone practices Christian dogma that way, I'd be hesitant to call them oppressed or an oppressor. It's still definitely a specific religion, but it's engagement with the emergent power structure that causes the oppression.

[–] Iheartcheese@lemmy.world 36 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Given the chance, Saturn would remove women's right to vote.

[–] TwoBeeSan@lemmy.world 8 points 2 weeks ago

Typical Saturn energy.

[–] edgemaster72@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

Dammit Saturn I thought you were cool

[–] 000@lemmy.dbzer0.com 25 points 2 weeks ago

Astrology has specifically oppressed swaths of women in the Indian subcontinent. Search for "manglik" for starters.

[–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 23 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

I’ve seen plenty of instances of people being treated unfairly and unjustly due to religious astrology beliefs. Especially women (of Indian descent, also Chinese but my experience is more limited there).

[–] outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 2 weeks ago

Extremely white bitch. I got it too!

It turns out shit people will use anything as an excuse to be shit. Makes dating hard(er).

[–] farngis_mcgiles@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 weeks ago

my boy andres had a girl reject him just because he's a vigo

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

One of the weirdest far-right slurs I've seen flung at Muslims is "Moon Worshiper". Like, someone on AM Radio must have gone on a serious tear, because it comes up in reactionary church sermons and Facebook posts and the occasional Congressional exchange.

Something about having even a casual association with extraterrestrial bodies really sets Christian Conservatives off.

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

That is kinda weird, but I don't think it's that much weirder than some random wannabe slur with "cross" in it.

Those morons just have seen the symbols of Islam and don't know what they symbolise or where they come from, or that they in fact aren't the objects of worship.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbols_of_Islam

[–] svcg@lemmy.blahaj.zone 17 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

If the moon doesn't oppress women, then why is the menstrual cycle the same length as the lunar cycle?

Checkmate, ~~atheists~~ astrologists!

[–] outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 2 weeks ago

Thats only cis women though.

And also some trans men.

And some genderqueers.

So...

[–] ZeffSyde@lemmy.world 11 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I dunno, I've heard many women and gays complaining that Mercury is retrograding them, or something. /s

[–] neuracnu@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 2 weeks ago

Additionally, the stars and moon actually exist.

[–] IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago

there's one star that is oppressing albino women and gays though

[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 weeks ago

Only people can oppress people.

[–] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

A lot of folk religions exalt third genders and women into religious positions. It is the major world religions who put down women and third genders are the problem.

[–] AlexLost@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

Hey, if the stars and planets affect people's behaviour... Just saying.

[–] CrazyLikeGollum@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

One could argue that they lift people up, since there's a slight canceling of the effect of Earth's gravity when they're over head. Conversely, the opposite is true when they're on the other side of the planet.

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The gravitational effect is only meaningful from the Moon and the Sun.

The Moon obviously affects the tides, and is very, very slowly making our days longer.

The Sun is ... you know, the center of the Solar System, defines our entire orbit, our year.

Nothing else is massive enough or close enough to have a meaningful gravitational impact.

[–] CrazyLikeGollum@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Right, the post mentions "the Moon and stars." Last I checked, the Moon is still the Moon and the Sun is a star.

Also, I didn't say anything about the effect being meaningful. An effect that is non-zero is still an effect even if it is negligible.

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I mean, if you want to be this pedantic...

'the stars'

99.999...% of 'the stars' are not the Sun.

99.999...% of 'the Moon and the stars' are neither the Moon nor the Sun.

And... I know you didn't say meaningful.

I did. That's my counter argument to your ... hypothetical? argument.

Further, when I say 'negligible' I mean... not actually empirically observable, not statistically different from 0, thus you could not establish any kind of causal mechanism with any legitimate basis.

Sure, you could calculate a theory of the difference of overall gravitational effect of 'the stars', but its going to be again negligible compared to local gravitational variances of the Earth itself, due to the Earth not being perfectly uniformly spherical, nor perfectly radially uniformly dense.