Creators Don’t Worship Their Creations

The logic folds back on itself like a knife hitting bone.

Creators don’t worship creations.

The sculptor doesn’t bow to the statue. The author doesn’t serve the book. In every other context, the maker has authority over what they’ve made.

Except this one.

Except women.

Every cell in a man’s body was assembled by a woman’s biology. His bones calcified in her calcium. His brain wired in her blood. He is not self-made. He is woman-made.

And yet the entire apparatus of civilization insists she bow to him. Adam gives rib, Eve exists. God breathes, Adam lives. The male creates, the female is created. It’s the only way to make the theology work.

If Eve came first, if she was the origin and he the derivative, the entire power structure rots from the root. So they inverted reality and called it holy. And when you point this out, the defense arrives. “It’s not about biology. It’s about spiritual creation.” Then why is spiritual creation always modeled on biological creation? Why does God “beget”? Why is Jesus the “son”? Why is the church the “bride”? The metaphors are biological because the theology is biological. They can’t escape the body even when they’re trying to transcend it.

Biology doesn’t read Genesis.

Every embryo starts female. The male is a modification. A divergence. The Y chromosome doesn’t build something new, it alters something that already existed. The default human template is female. Male is the variant. The afterthought. The fork in the road that happened because a gene switched on, not because the road didn’t exist before.

And the word itself tells you everything.

Labor.

The work of creation. She labors. He watches. She tears. He paces. She bleeds. He holds her hand and thinks he’s participating. The creation of human life is the most physically demanding work a body can do, and it’s done entirely by the class of people told they were made to serve the thing they just made. The seed argument fails because the seed is a guest. Sperm is genetic material. It arrives, it deposits, it leaves. The woman’s body reads the blueprint and constructs the house. Every brick. Every beam. Every window. Nine months of labor before the labor even starts. He delivered the lumber and thinks he built the home.

The theft is economic. The creation of human beings, the single most essential task for the continuation of the species, is uncompensated. Unpaid. Unvalued by the market that exists only because women keep making new participants for it. The GDP doesn’t measure the work of making the workers. It only measures what they do after they’re made. The woman who raises a child contributes nothing to the economy, according to the economy that would collapse in a generation without her. The creator is called the dependent. The created is called the provider. “Men create civilization,” they say. And women created the men who created civilization. That’s a longer supply chain, not a counter-argument. You don’t get credit for the house because you bought the hammer. The woman built the hand that holds it.

And the inversion compounds when the creator isn’t just female but racialized.

Black women’s reproduction was literally owned. Forced to create for profit. Breeding slaves. The mammy who raised the white child while hers were sold. Indigenous women sterilized without consent because the system decided which creators were allowed to keep creating. The hierarchy of creation has always been racialized. White womanhood as fragile vessel to be protected. Black and Brown womanhood as factory to be exploited.

And Trans Women. Trans women create meaning. They create community. They create care. They create life. Full stop. No qualifier needed. No “beyond the biological” escape hatch for a system that needs biology to be the whole story. The system that says women must serve men also says trans women aren’t women. Both are the same enforcement. Both use biology as a weapon. And here’s why. If trans women are women, then womanhood isn’t defined by the womb. And if womanhood isn’t defined by the womb, then the entire justification for why creators serve creations collapses. The cage needs the biological argument to hold. Trans women break the lock. That’s why they’re attacked. Not because they threaten women. Because they threaten the lie that keeps women subservient.

And the enforcement is maintained by violence. Witch burnings. Women burned for remembering they were creators. For practicing medicine. For knowing the plants. For being old, or alone, or unwilling to serve.

Forced sterilization. Women locked in asylums for refusing to perform submission. Women killed for trying to leave. The inversion isn’t maintained by persuasion. It’s maintained by violence. The violence is the proof that the inversion is a lie. You don’t need to force people to do what’s natural. You only need to force them to do what isn’t.

The creator’s body is treated as a vessel, not a person. Amber Nicole Thurman died in Georgia because doctors couldn’t act until her heart stopped. The law said the fetus had more rights than she did. Josseli Barnica died in Texas because the fetus still had a heartbeat. She had a husband. She had a child. She had a life. The law decided the thing she was making mattered more than the one making it. Black women die in childbirth at nearly three times the rate of white women because doctors don’t believe their pain. Kira Johnson bled to death in a hospital for hours after a routine C-section while her husband begged for help. The creator told him she is merely the container. The creation elevated above her. The body that builds is treated as disposable once the building is done.

Before the patriarchal overwrites, the creators were worshipped. The Venus of Willendorf. The mother goddesses. The fertility figures. The cultures that understood where life came from and honored the source. Then the takeover. You can’t control the creators if you’re worshipping them. So, you make them the created. You write new myths. You build new temples. You put a man in the sky and tell the woman she came from his rib.

You don’t just conquer the land. You conquer the story of where land comes from.

You don’t just enslave the body. You rewrite the origin of the body.

The myth is the weapon. The inversion is the wound. The worship was the truth they had to bury.

The question isn’t why women are subservient. The question is how the creators got convinced to worship the created. How the architects got convinced to serve the buildings. How the mothers got convinced to kneel to the sons. That’s the trick. That’s the magic. Not the creation itself. Everyone knows women create. The magic is making the creator forget she’s the creator. Making her think she was made for the thing she made. Making her believe the rib story instead of the reality written in her own body. The creator doesn’t serve the creation. That’s not how creation works. That’s not how anything works. Except this. Except women. The one class of people who actually, literally, biologically create the human race, told from birth that they exist to serve what they produce.

It’s not a natural hierarchy. It’s an inversion so complete that the truth sounds like heresy.

And you have to ask yourself why the rule only flips when the maker has a womb.

Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and FacebookSubscribe the Vanguard News letters.  To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue.  Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.

Categories:

Breaking News Opinion

Tags:

Author

  • Matt Stone is an independent journalist and author based in Northern California. His work examines culture, memory, and the moral weight of everyday life through a clear, grounded lens. Stone’s writing currently consists of fiction and poetry, often exploring the intersection of personal experience and broader social currents.

    View all posts

9 comments

  1. Lots of words about “women”, here (and in other articles from this author).

    But was that word ever defined in the first place? I understand there’s some “controversy” regarding that definition, these days.

    1. Another hee haw despicable comment that craps on someone else’s work and doesn’t offer anything to anyone.

      It’s not funny. Only the indecent laugh at something like this.

      The only “controversy” is with the soft-minded and cruel.

      Maybe X or Truth Social would be a better place for your comedic stylings?

      1. “The only “controversy” is with the soft-minded and cruel.”

        Not sure how that question make me “soft-minded” or “cruel”. In any case, how do you or Matt define “women” – since that’s what this article (and many others) reference – repeatedly?

        Shouldn’t you and Matt be able to define the subject of the articles, first?

        I’m not the subject of the articles, so calling me names is irrelevant.

        Also, you’re the one interpreting my comment as humorous.

        Maybe try answering the question in a serious manner (in regard to the issues brought up repeatedly in these articles).

        1. You come in here and lob that turd bomb and then demand good faith engagement?

          Naw. You’re a clown and have demonstrated that in comment after comment after comment.

          Soft-headed and cruel was right. You’re not funny. You’re a malignant actor.

  2. So apparently, Matt and Kendra’s position is that there is no “controversy” regarding the definition of “man” or “woman” (despite a Supreme court appointee not even willing to answer that question).

    Seems to me that the definitions weren’t controversial until about 10 years ago, when some attempted to change the definition (and which now might get you kicked out of a library for using such terms).

    And come to think of it, who, exactly, is Kendra referring to (in regard to similar articles) regarding her unsolicited advice for young “men”? (A term that she and Matt refuse to even define, no less.)

    Please forgive me in advance if I’m using the wrong pronouns when referring to anyone on here.

      1. I recently met a person in Davis who said that he was a staunch progressive except for one issue: Trans women (biological males) playing on girls sports teams.

        I then pointed out that trans women (and others who claim to be their allies) insist upon calling themselves women (or girls), and he said that he was “fine” with that. (He didn’t seem to understand that there are legal ramifications regarding terminology which would impact his concern. This is also the likely reason that the recent Supreme court appointee declined to define the term.)

        The person whom I met took youth sports seriously, much more than I do.

        He didn’t seem to understand that you can’t be simultaneously opposed to biological males playing on girls sports teams, for example – if you also have no concerns about anyone labeling themselves as a woman or girl.

Leave a Comment