puppygirl thoughts. if you saw this no you didn't.
you can dump anyone you want any time. i regard this as a given - you do not need permission to break up with someone. it may be a weighty and consequential decision, but you can. if we take this as a given, "dump your puppygirl" is not permission (because permission isn't needed); its providing a framework to justify a breakup, and incitement to act on that framework. its providing a narrative logic on which to hang your resentment.
the essay conjoins matters of disability, relationship dynamics, failures in communication, codependency, labor relations, and gendered behavior with little apparent consideration to the distinctions between them.
the puppygirl is an invented figure. she is not real. her actions and behaviors do not represent a real person. she is a stand-in and she has been created to have exactly the qualities the author wishes her to. likewise the narrator, likewise the polycule. any resemblance to living individuals is borne out of the author's desire to make her point.
the puppygirl's disability is not explicitly questioned, but implicitly undermined. she is exaggerating, she is engaging in weaponized incompetence, she is caught in a lie. surely it can't really be that bad? can't you see how hard the narrator works? why can't the puppygirl work that hard? the nature of her helplessness must come from personal merit or lack thereof, from choices she makes. no true disabled person could be so helplessly reliant on others.
why is the polycule structured to fawn for the puppygirl's tears? why is the narrator scolded by her other partners for asserting boundaries, attempting to communicate about problems? is this engineered by the puppygirl? what decisions led to her being supported in the first place, anyway? who has agency here, and who does not?
weaponized incompetence leads to an unequal division of labor. disability leads to an unequal division of labor. what sort of unequal division of labor is "support" and what sort is "exploitation"? there is a pernicious elision of the distance between these concepts - the narrator may not accuse the puppygirl of falling into weaponized incompetence, she just describes weaponized incompetence and leaves the implication to the reader. surely the puppygirl's incompetence, her inability, is strategic. lazy. unfair. surely her breakdowns are tactically avoidant, a cost the narrator must pay or avoid herself. (surely these things are true, because the author wrote them to be true.)
the narrator does the math. she gives this much care to the puppygirl. the puppygirl gives this much care back. the math is bad. unfavorable. the puppygirl asks too much, needs too much, and doesn't give enough. she's worse than a boss, worse than a landlord; the only solution is to unionize with the other members of the polycule about it. talk to your coworkers about your wages!
(later, in another essay, the author will clarify that unequal divisions of care are not the problem; its just that the puppygirl's is too unequal, not like that good midwestern disabled trans woman, who tries the right way, and enough.)
weaponized incompetence is gendered, by the way, did you know, this is a thing husbands and boyfriends do, this is a mannish thing to do. we are all trans women, by the way.
all the sex we have is sex i don't want. this is a very gentle way to call someone a rapist.
i am familiar with codependent relationships. i am familiar with disability. i am familiar with avoidant behavior, refusal to self-advocate, strategic lying, exerting control through dependence. i have had a partner exploit me, my labor, my care. i dumped them. you can dump anyone you want. unlike the puppygirl, they were real. it was messy.
it is a central tragedy of our era that disabled people often must rely on informal support networks to survive. this phenomenon does not arise because they choose not to bootstrap into independence. because being dependent is easy and being independent is hard. this arises because there is a eugenicist lack of formal support to keep disabled people alive and well. but we're marxist and feminist, so we're ignoring that part, and examining gendered relationship dynamics (we're all trans women btw) and care as labor as exploitation on an individual level.
so what is the essay doing? is it addressing an audience that "needs to hear this" even if its hard? is it simply giving them permission, or is it inciting to action with a sort of detached and impersonal ableism? maybe its just saying "the ableism you already carry, the resentment you already feel? that's justified. thats fair. you should listen to that." give in to your anger. punish the puppygirl for the way the world has made her needy. run the numbers, they're on your side here. hey, when did this start being about sides?
