like the king arthur problem of how were these people always accidentally sleeping with the wrong person? well 1) no glasses 2) no lights and candles are so expensive 3) royal couples didnāt even sleep in the same bed a lot of the time anyway 4) arranged marriage how much do you really know your spouse anyway? maybe not very well a lot of the time 5) people are drinking a lot idk. maybe not as absurd as one might think
this post is brought to you by the one time i woke up at a sleepover and realized that without my glasses i could not distinguish one friend from the other. haunting. all of arthurian literature was unlocked to me at that moment
The Rodeo Rule: you only have to do it for the first time once.
The Rohan Rule: if you are at a social function full of new people and you want to be liked, find someone doing important work like setup or food prep and offer to help.
The Tutorial Mode Rule: to navigate an unfamiliar situation where you fear you will mess up an interaction, preface the interaction by mentioning that you've never done this before, and let them know if you have a specific concern or question.
The Rocket Science Rule: most new things you want to try seem very complicated but are simple when taken step by step.
The [X] Will Remember That Rule: if you need to make small talk with the same person on a regular basis, try to save one fact or current event in their life from a given conversation and bring it up next time you talk.
The Cool Binder Rule: by wearing clothes and accessories that are to your taste instead of trying to blend in, people will be more likely to compliment you and show interest in you as a person.
This Fourth of July, I ask that you support Native Hawaiian independence.
The Kingdom of Hawaiāi was illegally overthrown with the help of American businessmen and we have suffered under the iron grip of America.
Our land is simply seen as a vacation spot, my people are simply seen as tour guides and hula dancers. We have had our culture, our history, and our people turned into a commercialized joke by America.
The rampant tourism kills our islands with endless hotels, attractions and overcrowding. The housing and living costs are out of control because of the false āparadiseā narrative. The Navy poisons our water and destroys our land. Covid has killed so many of my people due to the reckless and selfish nature of tourists. I have lost loved ones to this virus, because tourists ācouldnāt stay awayā.
My people have suffered. I have suffered.
We are more than your vacation. We are more than an aesthetic.
We are a sovereign nation illegally occupied by the United States of America.
Restore Hawaiāi to Hawaiians. End the American Occupation.
See the links below to learn more and to read up on your Hawaiian history.
Americans overthrow Hawaiian monarchy | HISTORY
Hawaiian scholar Dr. Jonathan Kay KamakawiwoŹ»ole Osorio explains the movement asking the United States to return the lands taken during a 18
āÄina Momona is a Native Hawaiian led community organization dedicated to environmental sustainability, food security and resilience, and so
The United States Navy has a history of terrorism in HawaiŹ»i (and throughout the world). In 1940 the Navy started to build the Red Hill Fuel
The latest number brings the statewide total since the start of the pandemic to 308,695.
I always think of the description I saw years ago: Self-imposed deadlines don't help me, because I know the person who set them, and they're full of shit.
Give yourself the treat before you start. I'm serious. And ideally during the task and afterwards too.
Executive dysfunction comes from a lack of available dopamine. Common advice is wrong. You need to provide your own dopamine before you can start. Otherwise you're trying to run your car on empty.
"But what if I still don't do it" well you already weren't getting it done anyway. Now you have a little treat. Try again later.
You deserve kindness and care even when you aren't being productive.
(Also read How to Keep House While Drowning by KC Davis)
I give my students a LOT of techniques for starting writing when it feels overwhelming or daunting, but one of them is exactly this: dopamine load BEFOREHAND. It may sound weird to people on tumblr dot com, but a lot of people seriously struggle with executive dysfunction when it comes to writing literally anything, to the extent that it can cause such symptoms as panic, depression, and AI chatbot use.
I usually suggest this technique as a "Reverse Pomodoro." In the original Pomodoro, you work for 25 minutes and then take a break for 5 minutes (the times vary, but that's the essential ratio). People with executive dysfunction often find this insurmountable, and they get even more frustrated, and then the task seems even more difficult. So instead, flip those times.
FIRST, spend 25 minutes doing something energizing and engaging that you like to do. Not scrolling social media passively, not watching tv, not napping. Try something like colouring, doing yoga, running/walking around the block, talking about your favourite tv show with someone in real time, playing with the dog or cat, making and eating a lovely sandwich, hula hooping, something active. Having a little treat absolutely falls in this category!
(on the subject of little treats: refusing yourself food until you do work is for fucking Puritans and you can be kinder to yourself)
Then, after 25 minutes (or however long it takes to eat the sandwich or finish the yoga routine, it doesn't have to be exact), spend 5 minutes writing (or doing whatever you're struggling to start). Most people can coax themselves into doing something they find difficult for five minutes, if they have already filled up the joy/energy/engagement bucket. You can put a timer on for the 5 minutes if you want, or if you find that annoying, just work for as long as you like.
The other key is: don't push yourself to keep going when you're frustrated or tiredāthat will just reinforce the negative belief that you already have, which tells you that this task is painful to do, and needs to be avoided. If you've commonly had to force yourself to do this kind of task, that's likely part of why you think of it as painful and have trouble starting it now. Also, you should just, at a basic level, try not to put yourself in pain for the sake of productivity. So just do it till the good feelings run out. Then start hula hooping or colouring again for another 25 minutes. When the tank's refilled, try another 5 minutes of work, if you can. Adjust times to taste.
Not every technique works for everyone, but I've seen this one work for many students who are genuinely and seriously disabled by executive dysfunction. And many people find themselves getting more and more excited and engaged in the "difficult" taskābecause the good feelings from the hula hooping carry over, and because they're suddenly able to do the task without feeling pain, and feel accomplishment without feeling pain.
Seeing people I know and like using AI is making me understand the protagonists of those old time sci fi dystopia's.
"Oh I don't normally use AI, I just wanted it to plan my trip"
You lived on this planet for decades, you know what you like, there are hundreds of websites where you can type into any search engine " things to do in [area]" and have at least a hundred different options.
"Oh I only use it so I can figure out what to make during the week with what I have"
The most popular website as you type in "recipes" into google have sections where you click dinner- quick and easy and those usually rely on staples + 1 or 2 items. I found 30 recipes on chicken alone.
"I had a writing idea, so I typed a few sentences into Chat GPT and I was able to write 20 pages with it."
oh shit i didn't expect this to actually get notes lmao
these are all direct quotes from jeffrey jerome cohen's "monster culture (seven theses)" (full pdf linked)
i highly encourage you to read it yourself!
that said, while i think cohen's writing is evocative, it can be a little dense, so while i'm here, here's my capsule summary (you can also hear me talk about this in the first episode of my podcast) (listen to @ghostswerepeopletoo)
i. the monster's body is a cultural body - The monster is a work of fiction to be analyzed through tools of literary and sociological theory.
ii. the monster always escapes - As long as the cultural fear from which the monster stems persists, the monster will reappear in retellings, reimaginings, and sequels.
iii. the monster is the harbinger of category crisis - Monsters defy binaries and challenge easy comprehension or categorization.
iv. the monster dwells at the gates of difference - The monster represents the Other.
v. the monster polices the borders of the possible - Tales of the monster exist to discourage unacceptable or taboo behaviors.
vi. fear of the monster is really a kind of desire - Subjects can vicariously participate in the disruption of the social order through the monster.
vii. the monster stands at the thresholdā¦ of becoming - Within the monster we find information about the self.
like bell hooks basically sums up the issues i've noticed wrt feminism & the idea that "feminism has always said the patriarchy hurts men!" yet that idea not materializing into feminists investing in men's liberation:
It was difficult for women committed to feminist change to face the reality that the problem did not lie just with men. Facing that reality required more complex theorizing; it required acknowledging the role women play in maintaining and perpetuating patriarchy and sexism. As more women moved away from destructive relationships with men, it was easier to see the whole picture. It was easier to see that even if individual men divested themselves of patriarchal privilege, the system of patriarchy, sexism, and male domination would still remain intact, and women would still be exploited and oppressed. Despite this change in feminist agendas, visionary feminist thinkers who had never been antimale did not and do not receive mass media attention. As a consequence the popular notion that feminists hate men continues to prevail.
The vast majority of feminist women I encounter do not hate men. They feel sorry for men because they see how patriarchy wounds them and yet men remain wedded to patriarchal culture. While visionary thinkers have called attention to the way patriarchy hurts men, there has never been an ongoing effort made to address male pain. To this day I hear individual feminist women express their concern for the plight of men within patriarchy, even as they share that they are unwilling to give their energy to help educate and change men. Feminist writer Minnie Bruce Pratt states the position clearly: āHow are men going to change? The meeting between two people, where one opposes the other, is the point of change. But I donāt want the personal contact. I donāt want to do itā¦. When people talk about not giving men our energies, I agree with thatā¦. They have to deliver themselves.ā These attitudes, coupled with the negative attitudes of most men toward feminist thinking, meant that there was never a collective, affirming call for boys and men to join feminist movement so that they would be liberated from patriarchy.
Reformist feminist women could not make this call because they were the group of women (mostly white women with class privilege) who had pushed the idea that all men were powerful in the first place. These were the women for whom feminist liberation was more about getting their piece of the power pie and less about freeing masses of women or less powerful men from sexist oppression. They were not mad at their powerful daddies and husbands who kept poor men exploited and oppressed; they were mad that they were not being giving equal access to power. Now that many of those women have gained power, and especially economic parity with the men of their class, they have pretty much lost interest in feminism.
As interest in feminist thinking and practice has waned, there has been even less focus on the plight of men than in the heyday of feminist movement. This lack of interest does not change the fact that only a feminist vision that embraces feminist masculinity, that loves boys and men and demands on their behalf every right that we desire for girls and women, can renew men in our society. Feminist thinking teaches us all, males especially, how to love justice and freedom in ways that foster and affirm life. Clearly we need new strategies, new theories, guides that will show us how to create a world where feminist masculinity thrives.
^^ that last part is why anti-transmasculinity theory is so important. what is the goal but new strategies and theories that guide a new understanding of feminist masculinity (more of the quote under the cut, read the book here)
Sadly there is no body of recent feminist writing addressing men that is accessible, clear, and concise. There is little work done from a feminist standpoint concentrating on boyhood. No significant body of feminist writing addresses boys directly, letting them know how they can construct an identity that is not rooted in sexism. There is no body of feminist childrenās literature that can serve as an alternative to patriarchal perspectives, which abound in the world of childrenās books. The gender equality that many of us take for granted in our adult lives, particularly those of us who have class privilege and elite education, is simply not present in the world of childrenās books or in the world of public and private education. Teachers of children see gender equality mostly in terms of ensuring that girls get to have the same privileges and rights as boys within the existing social structure; they do not see it in terms of granting boys the same rights as girlsāfor instance, the right to choose not to engage in aggressive or violent play, the right to play with dolls, to play dress up, to wear costumes of either gender, the right to choose.
Just as it was misguided for reformist feminist thinkers to see freedom as simply women having the right to be like powerful patriarchal men (feminist women with class privilege never suggested that they wanted their lot to be like that of poor and working-class men), so was it simplistic to imagine that the liberated man would simply become a woman in drag. Yet this was the model of freedom offered men by mainstream feminist thought. Men were expected to hold on to the ideas about strength and providing for others that were a part of patriarchal thought, while dropping their investment in domination and adding an investment in emotional growth. This vision of feminist masculinity was so fraught with contradictions, it was impossible to realize. No wonder then that men who cared, who were open to change, often just gave up, falling back on the patriarchal masculinity they found so problematic. The individual men who did take on the mantle of a feminist notion of male liberation did so only to find that few women respected this shift.
Once the ānew manā that is the man changed by feminism was represented as a wimp, as overcooked broccoli dominated by powerful females who were secretly longing for his macho counterpart, masses of men lost interest. Reacting to this inversion of gender roles, men who were sympathetic chose to stop trying to play a role in female-led feminist movement and became involved with the menās movement. Positively, the menās movement emphasized the need for men to get in touch with their feelings, to talk with other men. Negatively, the menās movement continued to promote patriarchy by a tacit insistence that in order to be fully self-actualized, men needed to separate from women. The idea that men needed to separate from women to find their true selves just seemed like the old patriarchal message dressed up in a new package.
Clearly, men need new models for self-assertion that do not require the construction of an enemy āother,ā be it a woman or the symbolic feminine, for them to define themselves against. Starting in early childhood, males need models of men with integrity, that is, men who are whole, who are not divided against themselves. While individual women acting as single mothers have shown that they can raise healthy, loving boys who become responsible, loving men, in every case where this model of parenting has been successful, women have chosen adult malesāfathers, grandfathers, uncles, friends, and comradesāto exemplify for their sons the adult manhood they should strive to achieve.
Undoubtedly, one of the first revolutionary acts of visionary feminism must be to restore maleness and masculinity as an ethical biological category divorced from the dominator model. This is why the term patriarchal masculinity is so important, for it identifies male difference as being always and only about the superior rights of males to dominate, be their subordinates females or any group deemed weaker, by any means necessary. Rejecting this model for a feminist masculinity means that we must define maleness as a state of being rather than as performance. Male being, maleness, masculinity must stand for the essential core goodness of the self, of the human body that has a penis [note: obviously this is very cis-perisex language]. Many of the critics who have written about masculinity suggest that we need to do away with the term, that we need āan end to manhood.ā Yet such a stance furthers the notion that there is something inherently evil, bad, or unworthy about maleness.
It is a stance that seems to be more a reaction to patriarchal masculinity than a creative loving response that can separate maleness and manhood from all the identifying traits patriarchy has imposed on the self that has a penis. Our work of love should be to reclaim masculinity and not allow it to be held hostage to patriarchal domination. There is a creative, life-sustaining, life-enhancing place for the masculine in a nondominator culture. And those of us committed to ending patriarchy can touch the hearts of real men where they live, not by demanding that they give up manhood or maleness, but by asking that they allow its meaning to be transformed, that they become disloyal to patriarchal masculinity in order to find a place for the masculine that does not make it synonymous with domination or the will to do violence.
Patriarchal culture continues to control the hearts of men precisely because it socializes males to believe that without their role as patriarchs they will have no reason for being. Dominator culture teaches all of us that the core of our identity is defined by the will to dominate and control others. We are taught that this will to dominate is more biologically hardwired in males than in females. In actuality, dominator culture teaches us that we are all natural-born killers but that males are more able to realize the predator role. In the dominator model the pursuit of external power, the ability to manipulate and control others, is what matters most. When culture is based on a dominator model, not only will it be violent but it will frame all relationships as power struggles.
btw i do in fact have to add at the end of this, that Abdullah Ćcalan's paradigm of democratic modernity vs capitalist modernity not only centers women's liberation as a core element of true socialist and democratic liberation, but also i think Rojava and the Zapatistas in Chiapas are great examples of how actually intersectional revolutionary feminism can in fact lead to not just better conditions for women but true connection and solidarity between men and women.
THE ALTERNATIVE MODELS OF MANHOOD AND MASCULINITY ARE POSSIBLE!!!!! but they must be truly revolutionary, truly democratic, truly anti-capitalist, anti-racist, anti-imperialist, and radically anti-patriarchal in order to succeed. feminism has not failed men by going too far, it has failed everyone by never going far enough.
men's liberation requires women's liberation" is a true statement. and equally true is "women's liberation requires men's liberation." we either seek both or we will get neither
Note as someone who has visited and driven in most of the 48 lower contiguous states of the 50 small countries in a trenchcoat that make up the USA;
The drivers of all states suck, of course, this is a given. HOWEVER. There are some very special places that stand out among these. In order of how in fear for my life I was.
3. Houston. Drivers in Texas in general treat speed limits as a lower limit for how fast you should be going and the drivers in Houston show no regard for life or limb.
2. Atlanta. The drivers of Atlanta do not fear death for themselves and would rather you both die than let you merge.
Fucking. New Jersey. If I never drive I-95 or the Turnpike again I will die happy. You've never known fear until you see someone neglect to use turn signals and Jersey Slide through 4 lanes of near bumper to bumper 80 MPH traffic and cut in front of you to make their exit as you slam the brakes on and miss rear ending them by about half an inch.
On the flip side, the BEST driving I've ever seen? Suprisingly, New Orleans. Now, I went NOT during Mardi Gras, but I found the drivers there to be courtious and cautious with a very few exceptions. 10/10.
burning my IQ points away @acecoconut - Tumblr Blog | Tumgag
