the problem is that words we use are like well-worn tracks in the snow. We use them without pondering what they mean. It takes something like a crisis in our li

the problem is that words we use are like well-worn tracks in the snow. We use them without pondering what they mean. It takes something like a crisis in our lives, or a psychedelic trip, can jolt us out of the same old mental rut. The word "supernatural" is such a worn-out rut of a word. It invokes paranormal movies or Caspar the friendly ghost. The very dichotomy of supernatural/natural is a recent, post-Enlightenment invention. What I'm trying to do in this conversation is take something that exists in many people's mental framework, and use it to point to something outside that framework. "Large groups doing weird things" must have a cause, right? And in an example like Patriarchy, no one claims that there is some king Patriarch sitting on a throne somewhere calling the shots. No, the story goes, Patriarchy is in all of us, even in women, perhaps even professing feminists. Patriarchy has real world effects, it isn't consciously controlled by any one person or group, it lives beyond any individual. According to some versions, Patriarchy is more than an impersonal force, it almost has some kind of malicious agency or intent. So much so that we gave it a name, like we do for conscious agents such as dogs or people. I'm not trying to suggest that Patriarchy is a spirit, or that religious views of spirituality are exactly the same as feminist interpretations of Patriarchy. I'm just using something from inside your framework to try to explain something outside your framework, because all the words designed for this purpose are worn out and no longer convey the meaning that they once did.