the bones beneath me scream

i’d like to ask: how do you explain the physical advantages women have over men, then? how do you explain women having higher body fat, stronger immune system, greater flexibility, higher pain tolerance and endurance? if women are capable of being just as strong as men, then do these advantages make us strictly superior? or would men eating less result in somehow having more body fat and more endurance??

idk why they insist on completely denying sexual dimorphism in muscle mass like it doesn’t make sense that evolutionarily, men evolved to be glass canons since they are less necessary for reproduction, and women evolved to survive. no one is saying women are destined and doomed to be barefoot pregnant housewives, but it’s stupid to pretend evolution doesn’t occur based on survival and reproduction of the species. it might be uncomfortable, but i don’t think feminism is going to go anywhere if we insist on denying science and reality.

men have no advantage over women in STEM, management, education, social sciences, arts, or just about any other non-physical field. lord forbid, maybe women aren’t the best pick for lifting as much weight as possible, but that isn’t particularly relevant in modern life anyways, is it? besides the value men put on their own strength, awarding themselves for lifting, it really isn’t very practical - would you rather be able to lift more or get sick less often, experience less pain and live longer?

They can’t even get something as basic as underwear right. The fact that “wedgie-free” women's underwear was marketed as this novel breakthrough less than twenty years ago is WILD. And it doesn’t even fucking WORK!

Pretty much every claim of Christians stealing pagan holidays comes from sloppy scholarship and conspiracy theories. Please get your information from modern scholars instead of trusting random witch blogs/videos/infographics.

The witch hunts were driven by the early modern equivalent of QAnon, not by any credible evidence that a bunch of cryptopagans were out doing rituals in the woods at night. Most of the accusations were repurposed from accusations made against Jews for hundreds of years at that point.

Christianity and monotheism aren't the reasons you have to deal with patriarchy. It existed in polytheistic cultures long before either one existed, and it would still be here without them.

European Adder (Viperia berus), family Viperidae, Sweden

Venomous.

sometimes reverence for land starts very simply:

learning the names of local plants. noticing where water gathers. thanking a tree before taking from it. picking up trash. leaving a place better than you found it. sitting quietly long enough to feel the mood of the land.

animism is not always spectacle.

Arright, quick rundown of the points, more or less in order, because I've already had this discussion a hundred times:

One - There is no universal moral or ethical code in witchcraft. Not every witch is a Wiccan or follows Wiccan principles. Not even all Wiccans follow every Wiccan principle, and that includes the Rule of Three / Threefold Law. The Wiccan Rede is ADVICE, not a set of hard and fast rules or divine mandates. You don't get to tell other witches what types of spells they should and should not cast.

Two - If you think the Rule of Three / Threefold Law means, "Whatever you give out comes back to you times three" or if you think it only applies to baneful magic, you don't understand the rule. The original rule, as stated by Robert Graves in "The White Goddess" (you know, the fictional novel that Gardner used as a model for Wicca) states that whatever a witch is dealt, they should deal back three times over. In fact, the passage cites a particular initiation ritual that involves symbolic flagellation, NOT a code of ethics for witchcraft.

It was picked up by later authors as "Whatever You Give" and popularized by media like The Craft and Charmed and authors like Silver Ravenwolf in the 90s when the modern witchcraft movement was having its' millennial boom. (This is a gross oversimplification, but that's when the concept became common enough in pop culture that non-witches were starting to become familiar with the term.)

Three - Karma has absolutely nothing to do with it. Karma is not instant or sentient and the bastardized version of the concept that's been worked into much of modern witchcraft literature more closely resembles the Christian concept of sin and judgment than what karma actually is. Remove the word from your vocabulary when you're talking about magic. The universe does not give one single flying fuck what you do with your spells.

Four - The word you're searching for when you talk about these concepts is CONSEQUENCES. Every action you take, every spell you cast, everything has consequences and everything has a price. This isn't a divine mandate or a cosmic law either. It's a simple fact of life. BUT. It doesn't mean that baneful spells are morally or ethically wrong or that they're going to blow up in someone's face. The only reason a baneful spell might be more likely to rebound is that it's one of the only types of spells that witches actively ward against.

Five - Witches have a right to use magic for persuasion, defense, justice, retribution, binding, prevention, or outright harm if they so choose. If you don't like those types of spells, then don't cast them.

Six - Moral puritanism is a cancer that will destroy us all. Get off your high horse, drop the holier-than-thou bullshit, and remember that being a witch does not make you immune to propaganda.

and