₊✩‧₊˚౨ৎ˚₊✩‧₊

So christians sell the idea that Jesus was the kindest person ever and that the entire point of the religion is to be more like him. Today I'm going to argue why both of this is false.

Why is Jesus good? They say it's because he's full of love and kindness, well how does this manifest in his day-to-day life? He is very forgiving, he hangs out with the outcasts, sinners, sick people and prostitutes, he feeds the hungry and washes people's feet. Nothing to complain about, right?

Well I can think of a significant part of the population who did those things, and more, way before jesus arrived. Their name is women. Women have been forgiving crimes comitted against them, giving chances to the poor, sinful and the outcasts, feeding everyone from birth, washing everyone from the start of their life, and have been prostituted thus being the only ones able to empathize with prostitution.

Some of jesus's main miracles (witchcraft) have been about making food from nothing, making wine from water and healing. Women's role in society has been to make food, even when the times were tough and they had very little resurces, they were expected to provide healing and nursing as well, as if they're natural healers.

So how come? Why, when the bible was creating the kindest and most loving m*n, they used all the traits and actions of women, to show how good he is? And he can make wine on top of it, just to be the 'cool girl'. This is written in a book that has barely few women named, where nothing women did or said mattered except for giving birth, where women were sidelined into oblivion. What is bible trying to say?

Jesus is appropriating women's work to showcase what a good and special male he is. 'He is so good he's doing what a woman does" is the message. But when women do it, it doesn't matter. It only counts if a m*n does it, and we will give him a saint status while ignoring billions of women who did it before him.

And then to really rub it in, he volountarily suffers for other people's sins. Something women have been doing since we existed. It had been said that the bible had to torture a male as a symbol because a tortured and murdered women is so common, it wouldn't feel like anything out of the ordinary. Torture and death only matter when done to males. And look women, isn't he so kind to suffer for your sins. What fucking sins are we even talking about.

Jesus is just some guy whose grift is appropriating women's labour for attention and following. Had he been kind and just, he would have highlighted women's labour, women's kindness, their deserved place as the creators and caretakers of society. He would have told us who cooked the last supper. But no. He only boosts his own image and talks about his daddy issues. We have seen m*n do this before.

Now let's look how this 'emulating jesus' works in practice; as a good traditional christian you're supposed to marry and have kids. Jesus never married. Hmm. He never had kids either. He wandered around and gathered following, like a cult leader would. Interesting.

It seems that jesus was never a 'provider' but males are supposed to be 'providers', as communicated by the religion. Who are they emulating? It doesn't seem like m*n are really pushed to emulate jesus at all, they're emulating, well. What do we call when you keep someone in your house and this person does constant labour for you, but you don't pay them and expect them to keep doing more and decide if they get any resources or say in their life? Slave ownership. Anyway.

Women are strongly pushed to emulate Jesus' forgiveness and kindness, they're the ones who feel closer to him, seeing as he does similar things, but isn't this kinda circular and nonsensical? He is emulating us. And then we're told to emulate a male who took credit for our accoplishments. He didn't have to marry a guy! He didn't even have a career or give birth or raise a kid! His love was just in preformative miracles! Where was his family, his social circle of equals who weren't just followers, his social obligations, people he took care of? He never committed to anything, wandered around telling stories and had bunch of people follow him, we would call him a bum and we wouldn't be wrong. He doesn't even emulate us well because no woman is as irresponsible or attention seeking as jesus.

His ultimate act of kindness was to 'sacrifice himself for humanity', and women already do this, with way less demands for attention or glory. Sacrificing our well being and our bodies in order to create new people is inherently female, even dying in pain and doing it volountarily. It's what women have done forever. They made up one guy and said 'see m*n do it better' and 'this is more important than anything you have ever done or sacrificed' and no it isn't. It gave everyone guilt issues to hear in detail about jesus being tortured while torturing women is made into entertainment and porn. Our collective sacrifice enabled humanity life, jesus just made everyone feel guilty and bad for him. Again, it's what we've seen m*n do before.

Women don't have to emulate jesus because we already did all that, before him and better than him. Jesus is a strawman for males to get to lecture women about forgiveness and sacrifice, traits that somehow never manifest in their personalities. Incidentally, it is always males we are told to tolerate, forgive and sacrifice for, when not even jesus had to deal with that. When are we allowed to abandon everything to go to the desert and work on personal philosophy? Apparently we just need to stick to forgiveness and sacrifice, and then submission - when was jesus submissive? Don't answer that. I shouldn't type that on tumblr. You have to find a fanfic to meet jesus they want you to emulate.

The logic of christianity doesn't make sense. M*n are emulating nothing and sticking to 'having all power and getting their way', while women emulate a preformative male. Is this what life shoule be built upon?

Dibaeis absoluta

OK, so why does this lichen look like it is growing mushrooms, even though these are decidedly not mushrooms? My first answer is "just to fuck with you," but D. absoluta evolved long before humankind, nonetheless you specifically. So my second answer is because the mushroom shape just makes functional sense when you want to produce a fruiting body by maximizing the physical area that produces spores, and raising them above the substrate by a thin stalk so they can get caught in and distributed by wind. Ok, so they are the spore producing structure of fungi, shaped like that, how are they not mushrooms? Mushrooms are we typically think of them are the reproductive structures of basidiomycete fungi, the spores are typically released from the lower surface of the fruiting bodies like this:

And in an ascocarp, the reproductive structure of an ascomycete fungi like that of D. absoluta, the spores are released from the upper surface of the fruiting bodies. So like this:

OK this is waaayyy simplified. There are also a bunch of internal physiological differences but you, dear reader, can look those up yourself if you are curious about the nuances of fungal development. But very generally speaking, basidiospores come out the bottom, ascospores come out the top.

So not tiny mushrooms, but very very cute just as they are!