I guess it's just a side effect of being severely depressed and genuinely having no will to live (not in a Tumblr meme post type of way), but I truly feel like I have outgrown the entirety of human existence. Everything feels embarrassing and juvenile to me and it feels weird for me to interact with it or as if I connect with it at all. I've been having this weird detachment from literally every form of few and existence for literally 3 years now. I interact with things but it feels like it's a juvenile, like I don't actually connect with it. I feel so abrasively bored all the time it feels like it's a miracle that I don't die on the floor.
Need a lot of help.
23 notes
·
View notes
A Routine Self-Care / Healing Thing I Do
(And have done for a while. I'm mostly sharing it because I was thinking about it and its relation to other values and thoughts I have and felt like sharing it)
Temporarily denying access to a main coping tool
It sounds counter intuitive, but every so often - either when I want to develop myself more or when I feel like I am stuck for no particular reason and thus feeling as though my life has grown dull and empty - I look at what I spend most of my time doing, particularly to relax, and I say "hey for the next week, we aren't going to do that. Its still there, but that action is off limits" and I choose to limit the usage of whatever I usually spend my time doing
It can cause some stress and so I don't push myself to abide by it 100%, but I try to stick to it when I can, because I often find that when a dominating coping mechanism and time sink is removed, there opens up a vacuum and that vacuum serves to provide a lot of opportunity to introduce new habits, new skills, and see life in a more creative and open manner.
It causes a mild amount of adjustment stress, but so long as the coping mechanism is still there to return to (and you let yourself dabble if it ever gets too stressful with the interest of still minimizing usage) that adjustment stress is a small payment for experiencing new things and being able to expand the things that you can self sooth with.
Not only is this helpful for having diversified coping strategies and introducing healthier habits, but it also practices and helps reinforce to the emotional / trauma brain that sometimes when things that we love and are used to regularly using to sooth aren't available, that we are okay and able to manage with other coping tools - including ones we haven't acquired. It reinforces the idea that even without our familiar coping tools, the world has a lot of things out there that can fill the role as something soothing.
And when you practice the unavailability of preferred coping tools in a space where they aren't ACTUALLY 100% unavailable, you can practice and develop the tolerance to that lack of access in a space where you still have control how much you can tolerate
Then, when life makes it so that something you prefer to cope with is unavailable, you have built up a better relationship with yourself, the world, and coping to feel a little more safe waiting until your preferred coping is available again; because you do this regularly when the access is in your hands. You've survived it multiple times, because its just part of your daily life and practice. Sometimes you don't have what you usually use to meet your needs, and that's okay. There's plenty in the world out there.
13 notes
·
View notes
I've been having a severe PTSD episode for over five hours and it never registered because spending half the day in helpless fits of obsessive, murderous, paralysing rage is the nothing out of the ordinary for me. "Oh, I'm just an angry person like that" yes because I'm constantly triggered, retriggered and retraumatized by living disabled and dependent on Satan, who happens to be my egg donor.
It doesn't seem like I'll ever really internalise that these rages are PTSD episodes, especially since I'm a woman and therefore socially conditioned not to harm anyone except myself (that's a privilege reserved for six foot cis het men in charge of families who do the traumatizing). But in case it does anyone else good to hear: you aren't an "angry person". You have Complex PTSD. The rage outs are the exact equivalent of panic attacks and disassociation that Hollywood likes to show. The need to FIGHT is as a visceral, animal, instinctive and uncontrollable as the need for flight, to fawn, or to freeze. You aren't angry. You're fucking terrified and trapped and very, very ill.
13 notes
·
View notes
I can't remember if it was canon or fanon that before he was exposed to the pits Ras was actually a good person/father/husband but it is why I personally would believe the whole "pit madness" myth was something Talia made up. I mean it would be reasonable for her to need something, anything, to be the reason why her previously loving father would become the monster he is now rather than wanting to think, let alone accept, that everything she thought she knew about him was just a lie
See here's the whole thing about the lazarus pit it's said that it's meant to effect you after multiple uses but what if that's not causation but correlation like people don't slowly go insane bc of the lazarus pit it's more just a side effect of living a long ass time like Ras at this point is 600 years old he's been through a lot and thats probably effected him mentally and even now Ras main goal is eco terrorism like he's trying to protect the planet which if you watch people make the same mistakes over and over again well I'd go a lil insane too
86 notes
·
View notes
considering what you have spoken about regarding selina do you also get frustrated with like…i cant quite explain it but sometimes especially in more recent years shes been posed or positioned like some sort of damsel that needs a big strong man to save her and like im not saying she should be portrayed with the “hollywood level feminism” for lack of a better term im just think about how old versions of selina would have hated that. like im just thinking of anytime in the reeves movie where bruce grabs her or forces her mouth shut or even when he didnt allow her to kill falcone and im just thinking she should claw the fuck out of him for that. i just miss a version of selina who wouldnt allow anyone to walk all over her personal autonomy like that
oh absolutely! in fact this is specifically why i can't stand loeb's take on her character lol (and as we both know that was a significant point of reference for the reeves film). it's really jarring to transition from her volume one and two canon to the long halloween / dark victory / when in rome. i think a lot of people tend to latch onto these books because tim sale's art is to die for and it's obv hard not to enjoy a good murder mystery. in that aspect they're still books i can enjoy in isolation. but i find it very difficult to enjoy them as a selina fan specifically because in every single one it's like she's looking for solace and security in a man and i'm not sure why. like what was so bad about her original backstory of having a deadbeat dad (whether you ascribe to the volume one or volume two version of him) and why did she need to go looking for her "real" father in carmine falcone. why did she need to seek out temporary boytoy relief in italy. why did she dream about being saved by bruce. none of it really has a reason other than to create a "lack" in her for the sake of it being there, because she'd never needed a man like that before in her post-crisis narrative. as you mentioned it was quite to the contrary and she was fiercely independent and protective of her own peace, esp from men. when she felt empty or without a connection or lifeline to someone real, it was mostly about people like maggie or holly or arizona. her people
what i think it ultimately comes down to are two things: the first thing is the diminishment of her post-crisis origins. after all, it's convenient to ignore how distrustful selina is of people, and of men with power at their leisure to abuse specifically, when her post-crisis origins are no longer relevant to her personal characterization. although selina's status as a sex worker is more prominent now, it was more or less completely swept under the rug for the bulk of volume two. loeb also refused to engage with it in any capacity. it only really resurfaced with the conclusion to volume two because it drew direct parallels to how we initially found her in volume one, and then brubaker expanded on it once again in his take on the character, which was notably juxtaposed against a pre-existing romance with bruce and brings me to the second thing. i've already waxed about this at length so this may very well be recap but i really don't think selina's lack of control over her personal autonomy can be divorced of the modern portrayal of the romance. when selina looking for security and understanding and comfort in bruce is what drives the romance forward there's not much room to maintain her original values and guarded demeanor, if not her outright defensiveness and hostility. a lot of people look at the extensive trauma selina has experienced and argue that she deserves to be in a relationship with someone who allows her to let those walls down. this isn't incorrect in theory. but it does repeatedly ignore who she is. it's kind of like the point i was making about bruce yesterday. exploring the inherently abusive nature of robin or of bruce's right to his children in light of that fact is interesting to do, but the actual execution has rarely managed to take into account who bruce actually is
for however nice it might be for selina to let her walls down romantically and look for solace in bruce—and i say this mostly for the sake of argument, personally i would argue against its necessity—it's realistically not something she's actually going to do. at least not as willfully as she's been portrayed to. realistically she's going to make it extremely hard, which if anything is precisely the appeal. i love it when selina gives bruce a hard time. i love that it's not supposed to be easy or maybe even a possibility for him to win her over bc there's so much about his own ideological stances that's flawed and in opposition to her own. she doesn't have to be any less unrelenting in her principles and worldview for that romance between them to be compelling bc at the end of the day the entire crux of it is that against all odds bruce cares. for however wrong he thinks she might be in a given moment or in her stance against the government, he knows who she is and how hard she's fought and what she's survived and it makes him sympathetic to her because she's real. she's a wonderful character through which to explore the logical limits of bruce's self-righteousness and categorization of crime, as well as a wonderful mirror to hold up to his face as he starts to ask himself whether what he's doing is really the only means of keeping the city safe. and the novelty of it all is that you don't have to sacrifice her character for any of that to be true. writers have simply deluded themselves into believing that they have to and that's why we are where we are today
9 notes
·
View notes
hi apologies if youve alr made a post abt this (if u have, then maybe u can add a link to that specific post?) but i just wanted to ask for ur perspective bc this is smth i keep getting hung up on and i rlly only trust u to answer:
why would abolishing gender be harmful to trans ppl if transphobia stems from emphasis on traditional gender roles, and the abolishment would further their focus on relieving dysphoria thru physical sex change instead of relieving it by having to conform to sociological femininity and masculinity as a means to adapt in this patriarchal society?
thank you for taking the time to read and answer this <3
no worries! i haven't made a post about this before since no one's asked, but i'll answer it right here for you.
the answer is, it wouldn't be harmful. abolishing gender would ultimately be the best for everyone, but especially lgbt people & women. however... the contextualization of this point is what makes or breaks it. let me explain--
trans people have a negative reaction when people discuss abolishing gender not only for the same reason cis people might (a kneejerk reaction to protect the status quo), but also for the very valid reason of wanting to defend transness in a transphobic society. it's the same reason why some gay people will react negatively to the fact that homosexuality is a social construct, and therefore cannot be innate; most people use this argument to justify homophobia & patriarchy.
the thing is, to abolish gender, sex must also be abolished as it's the primary method of naturalizing gender. sex is a social construct-- it's not natural. however, terfs and any garden variety conservative will reify gender through the naturalization of sex. they'll say, "cis women and men are natural, but trans people aren't. therefore, they must be eliminated." similarly, "heterosexual people are natural, but gay and bi people aren't. therefore, they must be eliminated." eliminated can mean killed or, forcibly dissolved into the "natural" categories via bullshit self-loathing propaganda.
a really easy way to understand why this is so upsetting to trans people is just comparing their situation to gay people or women's, really, as they are so similar. if you walked up being like "wow i cant wait for gays to be abolished<3" ofc people will assume you mean it in a homophobic sense rather than a complicated, radical feminist sense, and if you're focusing on the abolition of minority groups in particular, it does likely stem from bigotry. not saying that you've said anything like that lol, but those examples are the best way i can illustrate the point.
also, everyone on the internet hates radical feminism, so regardless of how eloquently you explain your point & how sensible it is, if you associate it with radical feminism people will ignore what you say, misinterpret you so severely that it seems deliberate but could very well be internet stupidity, and also throw tomatos at you. 😭 radfems, matfems & a handful of marxist, anarchist, intersectional fems + womanists are the only ones i trust to not be covert antifeminists.
last p.s.: we don't know what a society outside of patriarchy looks like. assuming people will continue getting sex changes assumes the existence of a natural sex binary, though it's possible people may change "sex" characteristics as they please. trans people's issue is not only being forced into gender roles, but a hatred of transness which puts them into a catch-22 regarding survival under patriarchy-- they're "reifying patriarchy" if they transition, but plagued with dysphoria, martyrs to a post-patriarchal world centuries away from us if they don't. perhaps, a similar scenario would be if you told a gay or straight person to simply see people as gender/sexless and to experience attraction, to give affection as though we lived in a post-patriarchal society-- it just wouldn't be possible, and for the gay person who is particularly vulnerable under patriarchy, it would more likely be traumatizing. dworkin put it so succintly in woman hating...
i hope that wasn't too repetitive or long, i just wanted to be thorough. admittedly, this is kind of a loaded answer if you aren't familiar with sex as a social construct, so if you have anymore questions, feel free to ask!
8 notes
·
View notes