🥀Muchas veces cuando salgo a la calle y veo la toxicidad de la sociedad me dan ganas de entrarme y no volver a salir 🥀.

¿El Racismo es innato o aprendido? ¿Tú qué piensas?

Photo by Anna Shvets on Pexels.com La educación, la conciencia y la representación social. Tres herramientas poderosas para luchar contra el racismo Hola, Curly. Ya sabes que en este blog no gusta tratar, sobre todos esos temas que te afectan y preocupan como mujer afrodescendiente. Y uno de ellos es el racismo, que tiene que ver directamente con tu color de piel, que forma parte de tu…

View On WordPress

I saw this whole long thread of people hand-wringing about "anti-intellectuals" on tiktok and how scary it is that they're believing sourceless claims other people on tiktok tell them, because they claim they have the same chance of being correct as anything that "science says."

and said hand-wringers were waxing poetic about the scientific method and replicability and how everything that's published in an academic journal is guaranteed to be true and correct because of a little thing called peer review whereby scientists (naturally a petty and pedantic people) are encouraged to tear each other's conclusions apart.

and I just have to say. if you believe (in the midst of a major replicability crisis amongst scientific journals, no less) that everything published in a scientific journal is de facto factual or trustworthy, and if you believe that peer review of all things is a process that is guaranteed to prevent papers with anything from flaws in experimental design to full-blown fraud from going to print (as if publishers don't have a literal profit motive to publish studies that yield novel, startling conclusions),

then you are 100% as "anti-intellectual," foolish, & averse to thinking for yourself as the tiktokers you're making fun of. actually I think I like you less. at least their ideas might be bizarre enough to be interesting

I've been thinking a lot lately about how so many people miss the point of TSR completely. Like Katara did forgive Zuko because forgiveness is earned and no Katara didn't forgive Yon Rha because she can choose who to forgive/ who not to forgive and no Katara shouldn't have killed Yon Rha because the whole point of the episode is that you don't have to forgive someone to show them mercy. That's why Bryke insisting that Katara "forgave Yon Rha" after the fact is not only fucking stupid because she literally says something exactly to the contrary in the episode and it doesn't just remove her agency it removes the complicated moral theme

Si todos hubiésemos tomado esta actitud en su debido tiempo literalmente salvábamos al país

The Origin of Misogyny: It is not Men’s Socialization or Men’s Nature, but Men’s Ability

The idea that misogyny comes from socialization is circular logic. Misogyny comes from misogynistic laws and religions? Who made the laws? Who made the religions? How is it possible that women were  socialized to be subservient to men in so many cultures, even ones that had no previous contact with each other?

However, the idea that misogyny comes from men’s nature is also flawed. Yes, men’s hatred of women is extremely common, as previously established, yet it is not completely universal. There have been matriarchal societies. And in our day-to-day interactions with men, we do notice differences between men based on how they were raised and their respective day-to-day environments.

So what is the root of misogyny, if it’s not men’s socialization or men’s nature? 

I think a more useful way of understanding misogyny (and honestly all forms of oppression) is not to focus on socialization or nature but on ability.

Men have a unique ability to harm women in a way that women cannot harm men. Men can impregnate women. Women cannot impregnate men. On top of having this unique ability, men also have major incentives for doing it: by impregnating a woman, they receive pleasure and a lineage. Unlike women, they also run such a small biological risk for producing a child. After having their orgasm, nothing else is biologically required from them. At worst, they might get an STD.

You might argue that some men are gay or do not want children. That’s all very much true. However, I am not arguing that men have a natural impulse to use their ability. I am simply stating that they have the ability. It is also important to understand that men exist as a class, as well as individuals. While individual men might not even have the ability to impregnate (due to infertility), we can hopefully understand that men as a class have this ability.

If it helps, we can think of this unique ability like a gun. Half of the population is born with a gun (ability to impregnate)  and a bullet-proof vest (inability to be impregnated); the other half is born with neither. The ones born with the gun and the bullet-proof vest  are not necessarily born with a natural impulse to fire the gun--but they are nonetheless born with one.

Even if a man never hurts someone with the gun, I want you to imagine how his psyche is formed just by virtue of having it. Imagine walking into a room with a gun and a bullet-proof vest, and no one else in the room has either. Even if you would never use the gun…just having one gives you a sense of protection, and perhaps a sense of superiority and power. Even if you would never use your tacit threat, you nonetheless have a tacit threat. And now imagine the psyche of those without the gun or the vest. They are vulnerable, and know that they are vulnerable, to the ones who do have one. And so their options are to either appease those with guns and vests, always tip-toeing around them--or to band together.

The ability argument answers the questions that the socialization argument fails to address; namely, it answers the question “where do sexist laws and religions come from?”  It comes from men’s unique ability to harm women in a way that women cannot harm men. This is not to say that men have a natural impulse to harm women--just that they can. 

Something that drives me absolutely crazy about Jon and Rickon is that while the rest of the Stark kids love Jon, they’re all too cognizant of his “otherness”. Robb, Bran, and Arya love him as one would love any brother, but he’s always separated from the rest of the family: Ned Stark had five children, and then a sixth who was separate. And even when the Stark kids think of the direwolves, Ghost is always set apart from the rest of them. We’re always reminded that six pups were found in the snow, five huddled together and one who was white as snow separate from the rest of them.

But Jon is not separate in Rickon’s mind. During the royal feast, at an occasion where the social schism between the Stark children is all too apparent, Rickon is too caught up on “where’s Jon? Why is he not here among us? Why is he separate? He should be here!” And we see this when he waddled to where Jon was sitting with the squires, only leaving when big brother set him back on the path to the dais, thus enforcing a social boundary that he himself was not aware of. And the crazy thing is, Rickon is a bit of an other in a way. Shaggy, Rickon’s familiar, is not brown or grey like the other wolves. He’s black with green eyes, a visual representation of northern mysticism just as Jon’s Ghost is.

And it’s going to come to a head when Jon’s true parentage is revealed to the world. And Ghost’s difference becomes even more pronounced. But what a stark (pun intended) reminder it will be to know that Jon is not alone, and he is wholly accepted just as he is. Rickon is so young and full of ignorance. But that childish ignorance could go a long way, especially in reminding a very insecure Jon that he does indeed belong, all differences be damned.

Call me a hopeless goth, but I kind of like the Ninth House's funerary practices and I wish we knew more about them. At least, I like what they could be: what I imagine they once were, before their culture was shattered.

The Ninth as we see it is a civilization in its death throes. It's a utilitarian horror show, hollowed out by tragedy and stripped of all dignity and sentiment, but we have good reason to think it wasn't always like that. They have a history of fine textile production and poetry, and occassionally forming hero cults to celebrate cultural icons. There used to be families who raised their children communally. Before the sea of tiny coffins, the Ninth may have known how to live, and even how to mourn.

There are glimmers of what their death culture might have been like in Harrow's prayer beads: made from the bones of her ancestors, a tangible link to her history and community. And in Gideon searching for her mother in the leek fields, imagining that a woman she never met is still present in her life.

In a living culture with a functioning community, the use of human bone as a crafting material could make mundane objects into momentos, ways to keep loved ones close after their passing. The skeleton servitors could be seen as a way individuals continued to care and provide for the community, even after death.

If their dead are routinely exhumed to be added to the chore rota, it would make sense for the exhumation, cleaning, and raising of those bones to traditionally be a cultural ritual like a graduation or funeral. Most of those skeletons would have had living friends and family working alongside them, when the Ninth still had generations. The skeleton sweeping the chapel used to be someone's uncle. People in these cultures do mourn death. We've seen them with the corpses of people they knew, and they're not completely desensitized; just very weird. There's a throw-away line once about Harrow having a pet peeve about personalising the skeletons, which means it must be fairly common to do that. What was to stop previous generations of the Ninth from getting scolded for putting funny hats on Cousin Balbus's bones? Nothing, that's what. Balbus liked hats, anyway, so I don't see how it was disrespectful.

I'm sure Wake didn't get a ceremony when she was raised as a servitor; the main beneficiary would have been Gideon, and god fucking knows no one ever went out of their way to make her feel like part of the community. I'm betting no one does raising ceremonies for anyone, anymore. The Ninth is as good as dead, and no one ever taught the youngest generation how to mourn. But for ten thousand years, the Ninth successfully lived in very close proximity to mundane natural death. It's fun to imagine what that looked like.

I would honestly call the left's inability to accomodate people with morality-based OCD compulsions an accessibility issue at this point.

I saw your tags on the post about trick or treaters not speaking and I am v interested in hearing more of your thoughts on the concept of “developmental delays”! I‘ve seen the idea that disability is a construct, but I’m not as familiar with the idea that development is also a construct. You have really great takes as an educator and someone who like, actually GETS how kids work, so I am interested in your thoughts!

I also know that posting on this subject might be poking the bear, so it is 1000% cool if you would rather not comment 💜 Tysm!

Oh I'm happy to talk about it! I love talking about this stuff, thank you for asking me to 💙

This isn't exactly new ground; there's been plenty of research into and writing on the subject, and deconstructing "development" as a static concept was, ironically, a huge part of my most recent development class.

The idea is that our understanding of "benchmarks" of development, which informs the larger concept of development as a whole, is heavily rooted in the assumption that Western culture is The Standard. We prioritize walking, talking, reading, and writing, which means we cultivate these skills in our children from a young age, which means they develop those skills more quickly than they do others.

To use one of my favorite examples from Rogoff, 2003, Orienting Concepts and Ways of Understanding the Cultural Nature of Human Development:

Although U.S. middle-class adults often do not trust children below about age 5 with knives, among the Efe of the Democratic Republic of Congo, infants routinely use machetes safely (Wilkie, personal communication, 1989). Likewise, Fore (New Guinea) infants handle knives and fire safely by the time they are able to walk (Sorenson, 1979). Aka parents of Central Africa teach 8- to 10-month-old infants how to throw small spears and use small pointed digging sticks and miniature axes with sharp metal blades: "Training for autonomy begins in infancy. Infants are allowed to crawl or walk to whatever they want in camp and allowed to use knives, machetes, digging sticks, and clay pots around camp. Only if an infant begins to crawl into a fire or hits another child do parents or others interfere with the infant’s activity. It was not unusual, for instance, to see an eight month old with a six-inch knife chopping the branch frame of its family’s house. By three or four years of age children can cook themselves a meal on the fire, and by ten years of age Aka children know enough subsistence skills to live in the forest alone if need be. (Hewlett, 1991, p. 34)" (pg. 5)

In the US we would view "letting an 8-month-old handle a knife" as a sign of severe neglect, but the emphasis here is placed on the fact that these children are taught to do these things safely. They don't learn out of necessity, or stumble into knives when nobody is watching; they learn with care, support, and safety in mind, just like children here learn. It makes me wonder if Aka parents would view our children's lack of basic survival skills with the same concern and disdain as USAmerican parents would view their children's inability to read.

Do we disallow our children from handling knives because it is objectively, fundamentally unsafe for a child of that age to do so- because even teaching them is developmentally impossible- or is that just a cultural assumption?

What other cultural assumptions do we have about child development?

Which ties in neatly with various social-based models of disability, particularly learning and, of course, developmental disabilities. If your culture doesn't value the things you are good at, and you happen to struggle with the things it does value, what kinds of assumptions is it likely to make about you? How will it pathologize you? What happens to that culture if it understands those values to be arbitrary, in order to accommodate your unique existence?

People who compare transition to self harm or use real people they know who've self-harmed as a metaphorical comparison to transitioning aren't making the gotcha they think they're making - they're just showing that they don't have the compassion or maturity to engage with either topic at even a conversational level.

And, frankly, it's infuriating as a person who does see those who self-harm as my equal who doesn't need to be used as a cudgel against another group of often vulnerable people.

saw your most recent post about really good fics that contain uncomfortable kinks and i immediately thought "ah, biscia must be reading the mpreg soriel fic" and almost left a reply talking about it but i stopped myself because i realized that would be an insane assumption to make. needless to say i felt so vindicated when i saw you link it in an earlier post.

like. HELLO?

HELLO???????

sometimes you'll see a post about autistic-allistic social thinking mismatch and you'll be like, this would be such a scintillating observation of how human society works, if it weren't for the fact that I have to add an asterisk and a note that the poster's background is probably most letters of W.E.I.R.D. (White, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic) to the whole thing

as an American poc, I am always and forever shaking hands with my non-American acquaintances here on tunglr.hell and embodying that one gif of the Asian man going "your experiences are not universal"

If Jane Austen could write about my family from the outside and I could read it then maybe I would be healed.

So when the democrats lose this, can we finally start blaming them for not incentivizing people to vote for them or is it gonna be another round of moralizing nonvoting as ontologically evil

(mgv) house's leg acting up but he's also in heat and nesting so he's at the height of stupid hindbrain takeover on top of being in pain, and all he can manage to get out are pathetic keening calls and whines.

and he's alone.

he's alone, and he is so fucking stupid for thinking he can make it through this by himself. but the thought of employing a worker this time didn't sound appealing, and the only alpha he trusts to help him through this is married, and he thought he'd be civil and not bother them for once, and he is so fucking stupid.

with shaking hands he only manages to call wilson because he's on speed dial. it's the dead of night so when wilson answers, his exasperated sigh is undercut with a drowsy rumble. it's the best thing house ever heard. he doesn't even remember what excuse he gave his wife, too wrapped up in how every nerve was screaming at him, but the next thing he knows is wilson rushing in so quick the bedroom door slams against the wall.