Marianne Moore

▶

▶ 435 ❤ 0 💬 0

In the mid seventeenth century love unions between African and Europeans were targeted by the Colonial Authorities as a way to further divide the people. In 1664 a new body of crime called “miscegenation” was introduced in Maryland. Anti-miscegenation laws prohibited marriages between certain groups of people. The Colonial Assembly of Maryland punished a woman who was “English or freeborn” who married an African-American lifetime bond-labourer calling them “shamefull Matches” (sic) and the “disgrace of our nation”. She was condemned to become un-free and serve her husband’s master. In 1681 the wording of the law was amended from “English or freeborn” to “English or White woman.” The General Assembly of the Virginia Colony also decided to deliberately move away from the English custom that legal the status of a child was dependent of the condition of the father (“partus sequitir patrem”) to making it dependent on the condition of the child’s mother establishing the principle of “partus sequitur ventrem” in 1662. This began the process of imposing hereditary bondage on African-Americans. Once the owners had this advantage, they had a self-perpetuating unpaid labour force. The legislation restricted and punished English women and enslaved men of African descent but not English men and enslaved women of African descent. It therefore advanced the sexual privileges of English men, controlled the sexuality of English women, and permitted and encouraged the sexual violation of African descended women. Full references and history in my article Brutalised & Divided: The USA’s Villain Origin Story link in bio 🔗

▶

▶ 761 ❤ 0 💬 0

There is an archetype at the heart of our criminal justice system and our economic system which is, not only really bad for these systems, but is also very damaging to men, because men still feel that they have to live up to this archetype. This idea of the rational economic man and a rational criminal man has three main characteristics: The first, is that he's meant to be completely autonomous and individualistic, cut-off from other people around him. And this means that men feel it's almost their duty to have this lonely stoicism. And second, rational man is meant to be completely emotionally devoid of anything. He's meant to make all of his decisions based completely on reason and this can cut men off from their actual emotions. Finally, rational man is meant to be selfish in the marketplace but benevolent at home and this weird contradiction means that men don't have enough accountability for how they're behaving in these different spheres.

▶

▶ 410 ❤ 0 💬 0

🔗 Patreon link in bio. Were you told that Yin is female and Yang is male? Well, it only became that way, because of patriarchy These concepts did not start out gendered. Daoism’s famous equilibrium of the yin and the yang, the two forces of nature likely began to be formed at least around 1000 BCE. At this time the two concepts were viewed as complementary and necessary opposites, implying a cosmos in equilibrium. But starting around third century BCE, by the end of the Han dynasty the concepts had become profoundly and fixedly gendered. Although originally neither yin nor yang was superior or inferior, as they became gender analogues, people began to see them as a hierarchy: yin was female and subordinate and yang was male and superior - and their inequality could then be used to justify gender inequality in society. By the end of the Han dynasty in 220 CE yin represented the passive, cold, wet, feminine, evil, and negative principle, and yang representing the active, warm, dry, masculine, good, and positive principle. Well done cosmological patriarchy, you got us. 🔗 For references and more information on this transition listen to the Patriarchy Whodunnit podcast. Available by Patreon subscription. #feministtiktok #ancienthistory #chinesephilosophy #patriarchy