Theory of Mind

Dumping grounds for my "personal", "do not repost", and "don't talk about that" 

[fagderolo]

anyone else?

[gobletsgobletsgoblets]

people abused as kids

[gobletsgobletsgoblets]

WHy do people constantly beat on about “you are not alone”? Literally that means this happens OFTEN, TO A LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE. That’s not comforting!!! That’s the root fear of PTSD, that it will keep fucking happening?? That there’s nothing being done about it???

Nobody tells car crash victims, “dear you’re not alone :)))”. Clearly it’s not about support, because support is not forthcoming. It’s a bone thrown in acknowledgement of the dearth of support, of justice, of anything helpful.

[gobletsgobletsgoblets]

you know who makes up false rape and assault claims, who freaks out over simple things like “ohmagawd they touched me help it’s rape”

anti-lgbt christians. they call everyone they don’t like a pedo and a rapist, yet they do fuckall about the rapists they harbor in their own churches

[fierceawakening]

Meta Fatigue

I’ve been pondering this one for a while, half-writing hints of it and then erasing them. But I’ve talked a lot recently about specific things I’ve had issues with in my fandom, but never about a bigger thing that I think actually matters more. 

Keep reading

[gobletsgobletsgoblets]

it feels like “always be aware of the problematic stuff” is the liberal version of “the only virtuous person is the one who is always working”. you can never be off, leisure is evil. just like you say here, to be “looking for escapism”/”not always aware” is evil by lefty standards. everyone thinks you always need to be on duty.

[gobletsgobletsgoblets]

imagine how different religion would be if we lived on a moon instead of a regular planet. i don’t think there’d have been such a emphasis on “we are the center of everything”

or how different science would have been. would we have figured out how orbits work a lot sooner? and everything else, perhaps?

[fierceawakening]

Your post about using empathy as a failsafe was really interesting, because I see it as the complete opposite. 'Moral rules' acting as a failsafe for empathy/emotional responses. Because innate, instinctive emotional responses to things are not by default right. People can support horrific things (GITMO, trans bathroom ban) out of empathy for specific groups (9/11 victims, women). Where's the failsafe for that? I trust my mind far more than my emotions.1/2

I vaguely remember you saying a while ago how you used to support the Iraq war (I think?? If it wasn’t you I also think you used to be anti-abortion due to empathising with the fetuses, so replace this with that) because you empathised deeply with a lot of the issues being brought up. That’s the sort of thing I’m talking about. That’s the sort of thing I think a failsafe is more important for. Thinking that your empathetic responses are automatically right is kind of alarming to me. 2/2

But I don’t think that my empathetic responses are automatically right. I think that’s (one of) the spots where miscommunication is happening.

I think humans have emotion and reason and it’s generally good that they have both. I also think both of them can be, and are, preyed upon by groups seeking to radicalize people. 

Which is why I think they serve as failsafes for one another (I would say “checks and balances” but, well.) I might leave a cult because even though I’m deeply invested in the group and feel accepted (unwarranted feelings), I have doubts about the doctrine that no one will let me discuss (reason.) But I might leave the cult because even though I buy into the doctrine (faulty reason), I watch people hurt one another because the doctrine says it’s okay and feel sick (emotion.)

I’m confused by people who say “but emotions CAN BE WRONG” as if they don’t realize that erroneous reasoning happens all the time.

Also, the reason I have reflexive discomfort with abortion is because I was a preemie. It’s hard for me to see a reason that I was “a baby” and “a person” simply because of my location (out of uterus at unexpected time), but that if my location had been different (in uterus at expected time), I would have been neither thing. And that “babies” are “in maximal need of protection by the rest of the human community” and “fetuses” are “tissue that can be discarded at will,” and location is the only difference (at least if preemies are “babies.”)

I still have trouble with that, and I think part of it’s emotional, but I also think part of it’s the idea that “personhood” makes no sense if that’s how it’s defined.

I still have no idea whether a fetus is a person. The difference is I don’t think the government has any better clue than I do, because I don’t think personhood in this sense is a coherent category anyway.

Also, the thing that changed my mind?

Reading a work of creative writing written by a pro-choice girl about how it felt for the protagonist to be pregnant with her rapist’s baby. Mawkish and tragic and all the heartstring-pully.

I empathized with the character. Intensely.

Doing so made me intuit the factor I’d been missing: that demanding that someone carry an unwanted pregnancy to term is the kind of thing that emotionally breaks people… and the government should not be making laws that do that, however else I feel about anything.

I called my mom (who’d tried to explain rationally to me why “a preemie” and “a fetus” are profoundly different sorts of entities and failed, for years) that very night and told her I’d changed my mind.

So yes, I do think empathy matters to the moral life. 

To most people’s, from what I can tell.

[gobletsgobletsgoblets]

Taking a stab at explaining the miscommunication over “feelings are wrong”/”emotions have nothing to do with morality”....

So, as a statement of fact, emotions do indeed have nothing to do with morality. What you feel should not impact what is right. That’s basically saying that a feeling does not automatically mean what you want to do because of that feeling is the moral thing to do. This is the whole “do the right thing, not the easy thing”, and the “don’t make decisions in anger”, etc. We all know that.

The sticky point here is that when we have feelings, when we feel empathy and compassion, that’s generally how we know that //we get it//, that we understand the other person’s point of view. We can talk logic and reason till the cows come home, but if you never get those feelings, then generally people won’t say they understand. Having feelings is when you say, “oh, I get it now!”. It’s a feeling of understanding, and when we’re talking morality with “””the enemy”””, the other side, usually what you feel is some kind of empathy with their plight. That “click” of understanding is a feeling. 

It’s very different from a logical click that you get with finally understanding something like a math problem. The “eureka” might be the same, but the emotional connection is different.

[fierceawakening]

Yeah, expressing distress and vulnerability as a man is still very low-status. But for all the culty feminists like your ex-group, there were also feminists who actually took that kind of vulnerability seriously. I *got* things from them that helped. Conservatives *never* helped. MRAs *never* helped, unless it gave them a chance to attack women. So I know who my friends are, and it's nobody in your comment thread.

That’s fair. I don’t align myself with MRAs or conservatives either. I’m mostly just mad that earlgraytay said “actually from what I’ve observed having people assume I’m a woman and then treat me as a man, there are different complicated things going on here” and got mockingly called an MRA repeatedly. Like… disagree with him if you want, but don’t go off half-cocked. (Half-vulvaed?)

[gobletsgobletsgoblets]

half ovulated?

[argumate]

the other crazy thing about the holocaust is how many opportunities there were for lowkey heroism, like the bureaucrats who issued thousands of visas for Jews to flee or the Italians who gave Germany the runaround by making up dozens of fake excuses for why they couldn’t hand over any Jews yet.

it’s heartbreaking to think how many more lives could have been saved by even the most timid acts of passive resistance, like requisition forms getting filled in wrong and trains mysteriously “breaking down”; if someone tells you to do something awful then at least you do it as slowly and incompetently as possible!

never have so many people had so many opportunities for heroism and taken so few.

[gobletsgobletsgoblets]

It doesn’t work if you can’t count on everyone else backing you up. If even one person snitches, you all die. This makes it sound like it’s super easy to resist, if only people would just....

[sethrogensmohel]

[gobletsgobletsgoblets]

I wonder if people do this because in the uSA, ostentatious religion pretty much IS the right. So if any religion comes on the news, that really is the mainstream popular opinion. Sooooo.....any religion is then thought to be “all the religion”. Because that’s how it is for them. If there’s religion, it’s the popular religion, it’s what most religious people do. Might also be influenced by the belief that anything to the left of “me” is “not real religion”, while anything to the right is “evil”....which is another usa thing, I think.

[fierceawakening]

I’ve just been thinking how glad I am to not be part of the culty feminist circles I was in back in the day (nota bene NOT ALL FEMINISM IS CULTY AND I KNOW THIS)

Not just because I don’t know if I would have felt okay making the Zamii posts I’ve made, but also because something dawned on me this morning:

We had things we would say, like, “don’t say patriarchy hurts men too, it’s a ‘derail’” and there was even a handy acronym, PHMT. I remember we said something similar about talking about women abusers, though I don’t remember that as vividly. I think it was WDIT, “women do it too,” and it was also “a derail.”

I think people were usually assuming men who trolled would say these things. The kind of MRA who is more interested in starting a fight than in actually discussing. And I do think these people exist. Whenever you’re in an extremist group you attract trolls and Argument People who just want to rile you up. I HAVE A COUNTEREXAMPLE AND I DON’T REALLY UNDERSTAND HOW TO USE IT BUT YOU YELL FUNNY WHEN I WAVE IT AT YOU WOOOOOOHOOOOOOO!!!

But here’s the thing. Both times that I’ve been treated abusively, it’s been by other women.

And it dawned on me today, and I don’t think I’d ever even thought about it like this, that an environment where “WDIT” is “derailing” – talking about my experiences is against social norms. Semi-forbidden, because being frank would mean I just WDIT-ed. Bad move in The Discourse.

How invalidating was that? How used to invalidation was I that I could be a part of an environment that said that, and *not even notice that that invalidation was already something hurtful to me?*

That an environment that did that was specifically not a good one for me to heal in?

[madeofpatterns]

Every time I’m in a feminist women’s safe space and I try to talk about abuse I’ve experienced; people tell me to shut up because I’ll encourage MRAs.

I’m still feminist but I really have to ask myself why, sometimes.

[gobletsgobletsgoblets]

I wonder if realizing that my family were abusive was delayed because a lot of popular feminism says “treating women badly is normal, everyone does it, and that’s sexism”. 

[andylarocquenroll]

Demonic possession will improve your life or your money back!

[gobletsgobletsgoblets]

that sounds a lot like exercise

makes sense since it would take demonic possession to get me to do it

[prokopetz]

Sufficiently advanced coping mechanisms are indistinguishable from adulthood.

[gobletsgobletsgoblets]

“you’re so mature!”--->behaviors being complimented are all effects of abuse

checks out

[gobletsgobletsgoblets]

If it’s selfish to not have children, then you had children because you want other people to think better of you. That’s selfish. 

You aren’t magically a good person or a good parent because you had children, although that’s exactly what abusive parents want other people to believe. 

[earlgraytay]

So this post is a great big garbage fire, but it handily illustrates a point I’ve wanted to make for a while. 

Men* and women are socialised to believe very different things about what makes a person valuable. Men are expected to do, women are expected to be. Men are expected to Do Things and Become Powerful, and women are expected to embody this numinous feminine force. Men are judged as individuals for their achievement; women are measured as a group, judged by how well they fit this state of being an ur-woman. 

Now just to be clear, I think both of these sets of expectations are nuttier than squirrel poo, and I think this is another case where women get the shorter end of a very short straw. It sucks a little more to be a (modern) woman than a (modern) man. But both gender roles suck. 

Here’s the thing: until you understand this, you cannot understand why men have this kind of reaction to this kind of nasty oppositional sexist bullshit. You will not understand why men sound like they’re talking about something completely different from the point, or why it seems like they’re overreacting to something minor.  

 In this lovely example of feminist malarkey, person A made a statement about men that is just flat-out untrue. Person B therefore tried to defend himself and his gender. But because bloke, he didn’t come at this from the perspective of ‘men are not correctly being something’, he came at this from ‘men are not correctly doing something’. So he tried to defend himself, and his gender, by stating the things he’s doing that (he believes) make him an interesting person. (And then proceeded to be a jackass, but that’s not the point.) And then y’all proceeded to make fun of him for not having the correct reaction and misunderstanding what you were saying. 

OFC he misunderstood you. If you talk about men being flawed in some way, most men are gonna understand you as saying ‘you’re not doing something correctly’; ‘you’re not doing enough to be successful as a person of your gender’.  

So guys like this are coming at feminist rhetoric from a place of intense frustration. “I’m doing everything I can, and I’m trying to do it right, and y’all motherfuckers keep saying it’s not enough! What do I have to do to succeed in your eyes? 

“ [Since I’m judging women as a monolith based on what they are as a class and not individuals who have different wants and desires], every time I think I’ve figured it out, y’all move the goalposts. You’re dangling a carrot in front of my face and then pulling it out of the way when I get close to doing whatever it is you want. Wtf am I supposed to think other than that you’re mean and doing this on purpose?!” 

 When I say “feminists often judge men for not being women”, or “feminists often judge men by both a ‘feminist’ yardstick and a ‘traditionalist’ one”, this is what I’m talking about.

 OP was using a standard of what makes a person ‘good’ that is shaped by our society’s shitty understanding of what a woman should be- a standard influenced by feminist ideals, yes, but equally influenced by sexist ones. A lot of bad bargain-bin feminism is just “what if we decided the unfair standards women are held to were good, actually, and men not being held to this unfair standard is bad.” 

 So OP was judging men for not being something- for not embodying some vague ideal of what makes a person ‘interesting’ and ‘emotionally deep’. DudebrOP then proceeded to assume, and reply like, OP was judging men for not doing something- for not correctly achieving the things that make a person interesting or emotionally deep. 

The commentors downthread then proceeded to measure him both by the ‘feminist’ yardstick: “this man is not correctly embodying ‘interestingness’ and ‘emotional depth’; he is not performing femininity well enough”- and by the good old-fashioned traditionalist one- “this man is not strong enough and is having an emotional reaction to something innocuous!” They’re using sexist ideals of what a man should be- and they’re holding this man, and men in general, to a double standard.  

This double standard both relies on and props up institutional sexism- specifically the sort of institutional sexism** that’s targeted at cis men, which we generally call ‘fragile masculinity’ ‘round these parts. I think most feminists don’t really understand how sexism is enforced on people who aren’t cis women, and don’t really care to understand it. But as long as you only look at the structural parts of sexism that affect cis women, you are not seeing the whole picture. And if you don’t see all the parts of sexism that affect cis men or trans people, you’re going to continue to uphold sexism, in the same way as, say, the people who think that misogyny doesn’t exist anymore because women can vote and wear pants. 

Listen- I’m not saying this because I think women are all bitches or because I think feminists are evil. I am a feminist. And feminists like y’all frustrate the hell out of me, because you are part of the problem. As long as you continue to perpetuate this bullshit, you’re propping up sexism. You are enforcing the idea that men and women are inherently different, upholding harmful societal ideals that hurt both women and men, and keeping the structures that hurt people based on their gender intact.

Is that really what you want? Do you really want to help support the patriarchy just so you can take cheap shots at men on the internet? Because that’s what you’re doing, and you’re making my job- the job of actually getting rid of sexism- a whole lot harder. 

*As is the case with my Gender War Slapfite posts, I’m referring mostly to cis men and women, transness makes all the gender things more complicated. 

** Yes, I know, “you can’t be sexist against men”, bluh bluh bluh. I’d use a different word, but TERFs have already taken ‘genderism’ and there isn’t really another non-clunky word I can use for it.  I don’t think you can be misogynist against men, but there are definitely pressures on men that do not exist for women, and they’re caused by gender roles. Not sure what else to call that but sexism.  

Also: quoting Terry Pratchett of all people, a male author who did not have much time for oppositional sexism, to prove that men are boring? really??? miss me with that nonsense.

[gobletsgobletsgoblets]

>>** Yes, I know, “you can’t be sexist against men”, bluh bluh bluh.

Sexism against men exists, and it’s just as structural as that against women, so....how is it that you can’t be sexist against men? Even if women’s lot is generally worse, that doesn’t negate the existence of men’s lot. If we follow that oppression olympics logic, we get toxic sj crap and nothing gets done and everyone’s fighting over who’s is “worst-est”.

[feministism]

[gobletsgobletsgoblets]

this assumes your current situation isn’t already horrible. no need to feel hopeful if things are fine as they are, if you have no reason to be afraid. 

otherwise, if you have no hope, well then.....

[gobletsgobletsgoblets]

my life is never going to change. the people who ruined it will never see consequences. there is no point to any of this. it’s not fair. but that means nothing.

[wrathofthegiraffe]

In the vast world of comics, I wonder if there have been heroes with a “Groundhog Day,” type power. By that I specifically mean a hero who, if they die, immediately finds themselves waking up at the beginning of that day again. If they don’t die, they just continue forward through time.

I’m just thinking of how crazy it would be to have that hero on your super hero team. Like, you go to headquarters in the morning, and it seems like everything’s normal. But then you go to fire off a one liner, and they say it at the same time as you. And suddenly you know. Something went wrong.

And then one day you come in, and your heart drops as you see that their every move looks rehearsed. They answer questions before asked. They are totally aware of everything that’s about to happen. Imagine how scary that would be, realizing you’re starting a day that you’re team mate has failed to survive maybe dozens of times.

[animetrashfriend]

@shanastoryteller have you seen this? Super super super super super super COOL