Posted in Verbose Redactions

How we process information.

Over the years, I’ve had a lot of people say things to me like:

“sometimes, we just need to keep things in our head.”
“why do you care about what others think about you so so much.”
“why do you complain so much.”

Et cetera. Whatever.

I’ve done a lot of thinking about this because I self-analyze my behaviors fairly often just to see what’s going on with me. It’s valuable to me to check in with myself about if the person I present is the person I am, and if I present differently than I am, why?

Very often, I find these assessments others make about me incorrect. Especially the synopsis that I care deeply about what others think of me in a way that affects my personhood. If this were actually true, I would be a very different person.

I am a person who exists in this world full of others. Being mindful of that is not the same as being concerned about what others think. (Note, anxiety disorders can definitely make it seem like your views are centered on how others feel about you. For some forms of anxiety, that is true, but not in the way most people assume. Anxiety is part of our bodies’ natural responses to keep us safe. When we have an anxiety disorder, there is something that makes our defensive responses activate at the wrong times, too long, or too often. And we can learn to manage this, but an anxiety disorder requires a different type of brain retraining than simply having low self-esteem, but this is another more extensive discussion )

I wondered if that’s just a personal failing of mine; that I’m not willing to see flaws in my character just because I disagree with them until a few weeks ago when I made a post about how incredulous I am about how some people view my posts as negative or complaining. Someone said that they see me as processing things. So I’ve sat with that for a minute, and then the fact that people internally and externally process hit me.

Light bulb moment.

I realized that for a large number of my experiences, around the time that I graduated from my undergrad that I couldn’t internally process those things because I didn’t/ don’t have the ability to understand those concepts and experiences from an internal perspective. I need more information, [potential] context, and sometimes support.

It wasn’t even an unconscious choice that I made necessarily. The unconscious choice I made was to accept that “confused kitty is confused” is an accurate statement about myself and not a sure random blurb. For most of my life, I internally processed out of necessity, and it wasn’t until I was in college that I realized that I do not naturally process internally. I processed information the way I was taught to, but no one taught me how to use this method properly or why that is what was expected. In short, it’s expected because it makes people comfortable, not because it is the right or only way to process information.

Upon reflection, I’ve learned that at a certain point, I became unable to interact outside my default of externally processing for many situations simply because something is missing; if I attempt to process internally, the perspective is skewed, or the misunderstanding increases. We won’t even discuss the conflicting issues with OCD as well. If I don’t understand something or a situation, internally processing just because I was told to do so helps no one. Again, we are cable of both internal and external processing.

I realized that due to how I experience the world (what I now know is me being autistic and experiencing socializing through that lens) that there are just some things I don’t get, but when people hold the expectation that I, or even intentionally put roadblocks in communication by prioritizing that the situation MUST be internally processed, they do a few things whether consciously or unconsciously:

  1. Block my communication and hinder connection.
  2. Engage in both direct and indirect isolation.
  3. Disrupt my ability to discussion make.
  4. Reestablish the idea that there is only one way of think and expression.
  5. Engage in able-ism and reinforce stigmas.
  6. Continue to remove us from communal interactions, further, and learning to have and express boundaries as whole people while seeing another person as a whole person who is not a copy of us.

So, in summary, I both internally and externally process, but for me to interact in social environments, I cannot stay in my head because my head does not understand the world the same way.

Externally processing allows me to understand perspectives that I may not fully comprehend through reading a book or watching a situation occur. As a neurodivergent person, it is common to misinterpret or miscommunicate and need a little extra support to interact in the situation based on the reality instead of just what I think the situation is due to my understanding. But also, for people to be effective in communicating and actually helping people do that, they also have to listen to what the person is saying and not just their perception of why a person may be externally processing.

So my question is, why do we interpret what a person says to be complaining if they are not complaining. Now I have asked this question on my social media before, and it’s been made clear that complaining is often based on an individual’s personal experience and how they use language. That makes a lot of sense to me, but it also seems incomplete. If we are talking about something that bothers us or confounds us, is it automatically a complaining? What is the difference between having a complaint that is an observation and being a complainer?

If you assume that a person externally processing is about them needing to people please or be validated for others, then does that mean that as a whole, humans only ever care about what someone else thinks about them rather than having the ability to say this is how I feel about myself even though I recognize that I am one person out of all of the people that live on this planet.

Also, who has decided what is appropriate and inappropriate to share?

I definitely think that when it comes to privacy, respect, and information sharing that there may be conversations that people have about how information is presented and discussed when you externally process. It is an interesting concept.

Generally, I have these discussions within my intimate relationships, which is why when I externally process about anything related to a person, they generally understand the conversation that I’m having have approved of that conversation that I’m having or have decided that they don’t care about the outcome of that conversation.

Posted in Verbose Redactions

A reminder from Rebecca

A therapist can’t be their therapist.

Rebecca continually reminds me of this even though I’m not a therapist.
I’m a consultant, a mentor, and a guide. By profession, that is what I’ve chosen to do on multiple levels. I’ve been told that I am a hypocrite when I struggle because I give such great advice and have searched profound views and understandings of the world. Why do people decide that about people? I say things that make sense to me.

Rebecca continually reminds me is that being hypocritical may not be the case. Just because I understand and see what needs to be better doesn’t mean I can always guide myself to what needs to be better, considering disorders and differences that are a part of me; you know and being kinda human-like. I study psychology both as a hobby and a part of my profession. Every time Rebecca helps me navigate something that I struggle with, I’m angry at myself because I know that concept. Why can’t I Implement that concept the way that I help others to?  

Rebecca reminds me that I tell people it’s okay to struggle and need help, so why can’t I be as compassionate to myself as I am to those that come to me for help, whether paid or just as a peer or friend.

As I’ve processed this, I’ve noticed that a large part of it is the expectation that those who help others will always be able to help themselves because we know better. We aren’t supposed to be flawed. But the thing that I’ve always said is that it’s okay to be flawed, but you need to be willing to address those flaws and be willing to understand the impact and offer healing.

I sat with myself, and I thought about it. I do right by people, but I will not let myself be taken advantage of, and I will not take responsibility for the damaged others have done, whether they want to address it. That doesn’t make you a hypocrite.

But knowing that and moving through the hurt are very different things, which brings us back to the beginning.

A therapist can’t be their own therapist.

One of the things I’ve learned over the years is that POC don’t have an issue with feminism bc many of our cultures have their own version of that from where we historically are from.

POC seem to have an issue with colonization and Western feminist views being used to yet again impose imperialist views on our social constructs.

This is where intersectional feminism came in to attempt to address the erasure of women of color, including the woman who laid the foundation of what became womanism and black feminism.

Look into the POC perspective behind women’s rights over the centuries.  The views are so similar, but there are huge differences especially in Western countries on how the dangerous aspects of patriarchy are addressed.

In Western countries not using a label associated with feminism is often viewed negatively. but I think we forget it’s also a political stance and some people can’t marry that with other aspects of their identities.

Do we ask ourselves why? Do we address that in other places women fight for their rights in very similar ways, but the way we do it for instance in the US is oppressive to them?

Do we address that US culture is a mixture of various perspectives and that’s one of the reasons why feminism is so hard to not add extra context to?

I think this is something we should really mull over during BHM.

If you get angry at women, especially WOC, for not identifying with a word, when a conversation shows y’all have similar views, does that mean you care more about the label or the context?

Posted in Cursory Resources, Verbose Redactions

Why toxic masculinity is an essential topic for the further development and evolution of social and relational interactions.

We’re going to start this off with a statement that may be controversial to some and may piss other people off. Toxic femininity does not exist. To me, that is like saying that there is a reverse to systemic racism. It’s just not something that exists because it is related to power. Now the women’s rights movement (in “white feminism,” womanism, black feminism, intersectional, et cetera.), has made incredible strides in women’s liberation, especially in the western countries where we see a lot of predominant fights for gender equality.

Now notice that I said gender equality because the battle isn’t men against women, it is inclusive to every gender that exists. Unfortunately when we say that we are battling patriarchy people assumed that must mean that we are in a fight against men and we’re not. We have been fighting to destroy the concept implemented that say that men have to be in control, run things, be and exist in a certain way. We struggle to say that women and all other genders have the right to be who they are and forge their paths. It’s destroying oppressive gender constructs that way us down and giving the power back to the individual to choose their path. Yes, women had to fight to get from under men’s rule, but the premise of the movement was never about men versus women. That’s so self-oriented thinking.

To do this however we have to tear down the concepts of a patriarchal society that dictates how people should exist in the context of culture, and with that comes the understanding that we have to break down what traditionally has been seen as masculine. Now, this doesn’t mean that we are waging war against men and their ability to be masculine. It says that we are creating a dialogue to expand upon the ideas of what is masculine and what has been necessary for our past that no longer serve society as a whole; The archaic social dictates that may have been necessary for the “cavemen” eras.

I know some people will try to argue that society should not try to dictate how men should be. As this is an opinion piece, I don’t feel the need to do a blow-by-blow of all of the articles that I’ve seen since I was a teenager that have told men, women, transgender folx and non-binary people how they should exist. Ever since the days where there were certain ways to court a woman for a man to be the head of a household, there is always something telling men how they should act and in turn telling women what their place must be. That is where the concept of “toxic femininity” really comes from. Not so much as a matriarchal society that was telling women that men have to treat us a certain way, but the patriarchal rule in which modern society it has been constructed that says this is how men should act and be so, therefore, this is how everyone else. Many women demand men should be a certain way and have lopsided views of their gross behavior because patriarchial concepts have reinforced that their projections are standard or less damaging.

No some of this, of course, has been reinforced by social and biological sciences and the misunderstandings from the past concepts that were unearthed. In the budding days of scientific discovery of any topic, over scientific evolution, there are bound to be theories we realized were inaccurate. That doesn’t make it a bad thing; it just means that we know better now. We know that men don’t have to be stoic. We know that men can be just as expressive as any other gender. We know that men can experience various types of trauma like any other gender. That not every man necessarily desires or is capable of being the head of a household. We know that not every home needs one person to be the head of it. We know that not every family will have a head of it. We also know a penis is not what makes you a man. You are more than an appendage.

So many people that still push the idea set up a little boy cries he’s weak. If a woman is a breadwinner for a household that she is a part of and the man is also a part of that household he is subpar or a disgrace. If a household doesn’t have a man or in a hetero appearing relationship the person that appears to be a woman (whether they are or not) is too opinionated in the man lacks discipline. Let’s tap into queer culture. In a male-male relationship, there’s are still questions of who is the man in the relationship. It often happens with women-women and visibly queer groupings as well. There have been quite a few articles about butch and stud culture and how toxic masculinity has touched it. In non-monogamy, we can’t seem to get away from the idea that our relationship must inherently mean polygamous. If it’s not monogamous and the only way that it can be polygamous is if there is one male and two women. If anyone who is a part of non-monogamous culture knows that this is not the truth, it’s just a representation that we’re constantly battling. Because you know a real man would never let his woman step out; He has to mark his territory, right?

So let me throw a few quick definitions at you and then we’ll contextualize them.


1 : containing or being poisonous material especially when capable of causing death or serious debilitation
toxic waste
a toxic radioactive gas
an insecticide highly toxic to birds
2 : exhibiting symptoms of infection or toxicosis
the patient became toxic two days later
3 : extremely harsh, malicious, or harmful
toxic sarcasm
4 : relating to or being an asset that has lost so much value that it cannot be sold on the market

These are some pretty powerful definitions right here. Relating it to toxic masculinity, we are saying that this concept is talking about whether something is poisonous. It has infected the way that humans interact and exist with each other. That it is abrasive and even harmful to our existence and evolution. That masculinity as it is currently prescribed is no longer an asset to our development and needs to be re-evaluated.


1a : MALE
masculine members of the choir
b : having qualities appropriate to or usually associated with a man
a masculine voice
2 : of, relating to, or constituting the gender that ordinarily includes most words or grammatical forms referring to males
masculine nouns


So this is where the hang-ups are because you know what defines a man. We say that masculinity defines the man but how do you define masculinity. That’s the thing we are mainly as a culture demanding that masculinity as a supposition is redefined because we’re noticing on a wide scale that traditional constructs are hurting men. Let’s think about it for a moment. Women are considered to be the best option for caregiving, even legally and, we know that’s not the truth. It’s patriarchy that is the problem with its predefined ideas of masculinity that we have been working with. What about domestic violence and sexual abuse? How often are we discussing the fact that men can be abused in their relationship, or they can be sexually harassed, or they can be raped? Because again if you are a man and your partner is out of hand it’s because you’re weak. If you are sexually abused, you are either weak or “damn man that’s every guy’s wet dream.” What we have to realize is that masculinity and femininity are constantly evolving concepts that are described by the overarching themes of the society that we live within. This consequence of masculinity and feminity not being used as flexible descriptions; they’ve been prescriptive and rigid in nature. This consequence is a dangerous and detrimental outcome of a patriarchal structure – How “patriarchy” has fucked men over, which has fucked women over, which has fucked all the genders over, and it’s hazardous to us all.


1 : social organization marked by the supremacy of the father in the clan or family, the legal dependence of wives and children, and the reckoning of descent and inheritance in the male line
broadly : control by men of a disproportionately large share of power
2 : a society or institution organized according to the principles or practices of patriarchy

So right here I want to be a little bit transparent. I am a queer woman in a hetero appearing relationship to my white CISHET spouse. He also happens to be our agreed and negotiated head of our household. That confuses many people because I am an intersectional feminist, profoundly rooted in the ideas of womanism. I always want to emphasize that my relationship purposely seeks to deconstruct the idea that if a household chooses to have a head of household that it can be a negotiated discussion and the head of household does not have to be a man. I mean honestly, it came down to who was more willing to make phone calls and the fact that we have a negotiated power exchange style relationship.

Neither of us believes in the concept that men reign supreme in society. I honestly don’t think I know anyone personally that believes that men should be in charge. I do know people who have that belief, and I know there are many people within the broader context of our society with that belief. Those folks are not welcome in my inner circle. You see as a feminist I can’t entirely agree that any gender should have overall authority over everyone else in a culture nor do I believe that a society should be built on the principles of that concept. However, historically we can see that our society (and others) has slowly relied on the fact that there is a man who is the head of a family. A man who is in charge of a larger society, then a group of men who are in charge of a larger society on top of that. It was fairly accepted that that was the way of things, then women decided that we weren’t okay with that (I won’t get into the gory details of racism and queer erasure in that its a whole different discussion). Unfortunately, women doing something about it has been seen as hate towards men or even the attempt for role reversal. The reality is that men themselves as persons are not what’s being challenged. Its men are having their privileged place in society disrupted. That can be scary. It feels like the rights and privileges that you have are being stripped away when they’re just being extended to everybody else because they are just as deserving of those rights.

Toxic masculinity

“Toxic masculinity is a narrow and repressive description of manhood, designating manhood as defined by violence, sex, status and aggression. It’s the cultural ideal of manliness, where strength is everything while emotions are a weakness; where sex and brutality are yardsticks by which men are measured, while supposedly “feminine” traits—which can range from emotional vulnerability to simply not being hypersexual—are the means by which your status as “man” can be taken away.”

~ “What We Mean When We Say, “Toxic Masculinity” . December 11, 2017.

So here is a straightforward definition of what toxic masculinity as a term and concept is supposed to embody. We all know dictionary definitions lack nuance and context. That is why general definitions for large societal discussions reduce the accuracy and the ability to have a real conversation. Toxic masculinity is a multi-disciplinary term representing a concept that embodies the intersections of sociology, psychology, and politics. Honestly, there is a lot more to it than just those disciplines, but those are the big three that this topic focuses on.

As you can see the term toxic masculinity is about broadening the definition of what masculinity and femininity mean in society. This expanded definition is a necessary reflection of how language and our interactions as humans. Society changes as more people are introduced into it, as our needs as humans change, and as we have scientific and technological advances. As we learn more about who we are and our place in the universe we grow and the way we view and describe ourselves has to change. Toxic masculinity is pointing out that we’ve been so focused on violence and sexual repression that we have hurt ourselves and men. The use of “Toxic masculinity” is a call to make sure that in the movements of gender, sexual, and relational freedom we are leaving no stones unturned. I want to point out that not only was this a robust activist push. It’s also a psychological push where the American Psychological Association is asking our society to look at our definitions of masculinity because it is psychologically hurting men with the current state of masculinity repressive views and that is something that is becoming a crisis for everybody.

I’m going to drop some links that way you can do more research on your own get different perspectives other than mine and form your own opinions about why this topic needs to be discussed. We’re not trying to isolate anyone we’re trying to build a better future for all.

xox, Kitty


Posted in Verbose Redactions


Normally my family, my mate and any partners we have as we are polyamorous, our close friends, and I celebrate the Yule season together in various ways throughout the month of December.

Our inner circle consists mostly of people who follow spiritual paths associated with Paganism or some eclectic mix of various religions.

Generally, our yule season consists of feasting, drinking, and rituals. This year we have bypassed the ritual as my blood family is visiting and they do not celebrate holidays ( They are Jehovah’s Witnesses).

My husband and I have been very low key in our acknowledgment this year of the holiday. Where there are normally well-dressed altars and cakes there are empty spaces. This year our home is not filled with laughter and the ambiance of the great mother’s presence.

This year’s Yule is different and it’s an interesting experience to note.

Blessed Be