Posted in Cursory Resources, Let's Talk About Poly

Consent is more than saying yes

Consent is more than saying yes.

Consent is having the information to make informed decisions in regards to your autonomy and respect.

Consent in relationships may include understanding your partners’ cognitive differences or ability differences. It may require “extra” communication for various needs.

When dealing with neurodivergent people and other cognitive differences, it is essential to understand the basics of cognition and ignition ability to understand where communication gaps may occur.

Differences can occur in:

❤Verbal comprehension or our ability to understand words, sentences, paragraphs.

❤Sensitivity to problems or our ability to problem-solve.

❤Syllogistic reasoning or drawing conclusions from premises.

❤Number facility or maths-related stuff.

❤Induction or process of making things happen.

❤General reasoning or finding solutions with more math-related stuff.

❤Associative memory or recollection based on information for unrelated things.

❤Span memory or recollection post initial introduction.

❤Associational fluency aka knowing synonyms

❤ Expressional fluency or your ability to convey your thoughts with accuracy.

❤Spontaneous flexibility, aka appropriate situational response.

❤Perceptual speed—Find instances of a pattern under speeded conditions.

❤Visualization or the ability to visualize concepts.

❤Spatial orientation or identifying objects placement in space.

❤Length estimation or the ability to estimate the distance between points.

I have tried to explain this in ways that will make sense to people that don’t study psychology. Please look at the links below and feel free to ask questions.

For more on cognition and cognitive ability:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/cognitive-ability

https://cognitiontoday.com/what-is-cognition-executive-functions-and-cognitive-processes/

https://www.cambridgecognition.com/blog/entry/what-is-cognition

https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/cognitive-skills-how-to-improve-them

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2017.0293

https://www.everydayhealth.com/neurology/cognitive-dissonance/how-cognitive-dissonance-affects-your-relationships/

Advertisement
Posted in Kitty Whispers

A is for Activism

I just want to invite everyone to take a moment, really think about what your definition of activism is. I really mean it. Take a moment. What does activism mean to you?

Activism is disruptive. It’s not supposed to make you comfortable. It makes you think, even in ways you don’t assume, it should make you do so. It’s supposed to make you feel. It supposed to drive change. It does, even when we hate it.

But there are also different ways in which this disruption occurs, which is why many people have a tendency to be upset with movements and find flaws with the fundamentals of them because of the type of activism that is engaged. It doesn’t fit their perspective or their personal preferences of how to disseminate that idea. There’s nothing wrong with being uncomfortable with the way, things are done.

 Let’s take a moment to think about some of the emotional movements that have happened and are still happening. These are not the only ones that have happened; these are ones that I am comfortable with an emotional fallout over discussing these.

The Civil Right Movement
Gaining voters rights/addressing voters’ suppression.
Veganism
Labor
Black Lives Matter

Each of these movements actively engages different types of activism and some that make people uncomfortable. Some of these just honestly hurt people’s feelings as they make them addressed beliefs they have about the world that they live in that they did not want to consider or think about.

Y’all the reality of the situation is that activism sucks. For everyone. It’s emotional. It’s making you address things that are not fun. Everybody wants just to enjoy life and live. The individuals organizing activism and the people who experience it. It’s an abundance of emotional labor. The problem is that without action, there are groups of individuals that can’t enjoy the life that they have and they only have that one. No matter what spiritual belief system you have, we can all agree that there is only a guarantee for what we have now, but that can get sucked away on the whim of political choices by people who are removed from the situation. Activism addresses that our current existence should not be less because of how other people believe we should exist.

So for just a quick down and dirty, let’s review some of the ways that activism exists.

  • It exists in the Arts and things that move us.
  • It exists in acts of defiance and Civil Disobedience that disturb the people around us and point out the inequity and injustice of the system we live in.
  • It exists in community support and cooperatives, community building and radically engaging a world that seeks to separate minorities from their community.
  • It exists in small silent changes in our everyday lives that make people want to change. It exists in our use of new technologies.
  • It exists when you actively engage the system that gives us information, providing new, decolonize, and reformed information.
  • It exists in protest and nonviolent demonstrations. It exists in personal accountability.
  • It exists in radically defining what spirituality means to you and identify what your personal philosophies are.

Many of you will be surprised if you take a moment of introspection to note that you often engage in forms of activism that on a large scale you dislike because it’s so visible and disruptive, but you do it in small ways every day. I invite everyone to sit with yourself. Think about why activism as a whole or activism in part makes you uncomfortable; why when it’s related to different movements, it makes you uncomfortable.

Activism Is disruptive and uncomfortable. That’s an unfortunate fact.

Sometimes it’s explosive. Sometimes it’s a slow burn.

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.

Toxic 

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

~merriam-webster.com

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.

Masculine 

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

~ merriam-webster.com

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.

Patriarchy

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

~merriam-webster.com

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. Tolerance.org

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

Links:

Posted in Kitty Whispers

Pansexuality is not biphobia; bisexuality is not transphobia.

The idea that pansexuality is intrinsically biphobic is ridiculous.

One of the things that pansexuality has done is emphasize that gender is not binary.

It has never said that a bisexual person is relegated to Binary interest.

Any it has simply bolstered the acceptance of trans and non-binary individuals.

Over time people have become more accepting and identify as bisexual or pansexual, but the idea that a sexual orientation developed to revolutionize the acceptance of non-binary and trans people must meet biphobic it’s just ignorant.

It took me a long time myself to be willing to identify as pansexual because I already valued the idea trans and non-binary people whoever they were. I’m an asexual who behaves pansexually. I identified as bisexual until my partner introduced asexuality to me and I realized I was ace. I only claim sexuality as a specific political statement. A lot of people that are bi still stick to the idea that gender is binary because they focus on genitalia. For me identifying with pansexual what’s the political and activist move challenging transphobia.

There is a super harmful article by bisexuality.org that is reinforcing myths about sexuality furthering the misunderstood of it political nature. A quick Google search shows more articles of the same.

That’s one of the reasons why it is important that the is invisible sexualities have visibility and education surrounding them. Because we keep propagating harmful misinformation about the creation of these ideas and labels pitting ourselves against each other in fear of being erased or misunderstood by cishet folks or GRSM people who don’t take time to learn something outside of their own identity.

xox, kitty