aaaahhh I am performing one of the seven wonders of adulthood…it get’s scarier and scarier
Though advocates of self-care emphasize that it can look different for each person, the suggestions usually sound suspiciously similar. When you think of stereotypical “self-care” activities, what do you picture? Drinking herbal tea, watching a movie, taking a bubble bath, meditating, yoga? This selection suggests a very narrow idea of what self-care is: essentially, calming yourself down.
All of these activities are designed to engage the parasympathetic nervous system, which governs rest and recovery. But some forms of care require strenuous activity and adrenaline, the domain of the sympathetic nervous system. One way to prevent post-traumatic stress disorder, for example, is to allow the sympathetic nervous system enough freedom to release trauma from the body. When a person is having a panic attack, it rarely helps to try to make them calm down. The best way to handle a panic attack is to run.
So let’s start by discarding any normative understanding of what it means to care for ourselves. It might mean lighting candles, putting on a Nina Simone album, and rereading Randall Jarrell’s The Animal Family. It could also mean BDSM, intense performance art, mixed martial arts fighting, smashing bank windows, or calling out a person who abused you. It might even look like really hard work to other people—or ceasing to function altogether. This is not just a postmodern platitude (“different strokes for different folks”), but a question of what relationship we establish to our challenges and our anguish.
Caring for ourselves doesn’t mean pacifying ourselves. We should be suspicious of any understanding of self-care that identifies wellbeing with placidity or asks us to perform “health” for others."
"Despite what some revolutionaries think about this, desire is revolutionary in its essence […] and no society can tolerate a position of real desire without its structures of exploitation, servitude, and hierarchy being compromised."
— Gilles Deleuze & Félix Guattari, Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia (via foucault-the-haters)
"As psychologists have told us, the more you mistreat people, the more pressing your need to explain why your victims deserve their fate. A great deal has been written about the “natural” inferiority of women, much of it by the philosophers and religionmakers whose ideas underpin Western society. Much of this thinking was grounded in what French calls, with wondrous understatement, “men’s insistent concern with female reproduction.” Male self-esteem, it seemed, depended on men not being women. All the more necessary that women should be forced to be as “female” as possible, even when- especially when- the male-created definition of “female” included the power to pollute, seduce and weaken men."
— From Margaret Atwood’s foreword to Marilyn French’s “A History of Women In the World” (via deermoon)
I didn’t read that ask as being stupid! I thought it was meant as fictional trick question. You are not stupid, at all and if I made you feel like that I am very sorry and I shouldn’t have jumped to conclusions.
Oh!oh… okayyy… you shouldn’t feel embarassed and I am sorry that I invalidated your experience. I trusted my instincts..and didnt think it was for real. I’m sorry!
It made me reflect and formulate on my views on chivalry, so thank you for that.
Ok, I am paraphrasing from a text I’ve read somewhere, but I can’t remember which one.
Chivalry hat its “high time” in western/european society in the victorian era.
So men offered their seats, helped a lady out of the carriage, opened her the door, held her hand while walking down stairs and so on.
….yet at the same time, this was an era where women had no rights over their bodies, no rights to property, to education, to vote, no nothing.
….. and this chivalry ONLY applied to upper class women. Not to women of color, not to poor women, not to servants, not to slaves.
So it seems to me that chivalry is kind of a thin veil hiding a bunch of crap. And women critisize not the veil per se; not because they are offended because someone is nice to them.
Because they know all that crap that is hidden biehind that veil.
Because the hate the purpose which this veil serves.
Because they understand what it entails.
I am not offened when someone holds open a door for me; I also hold open doors for others.
It’s just that occasionly, I hold a door open for a man; who, like a vampire, physically can’t seem to go through the door, unless I release the door, switch places with him and go thorugh the door first. Which to me is just slightly amusing or maybe slightly annoying.
And I like it when my friends, my partners are thoughtful, caring and sweet to me. Holding my hand, helping me with something, stuff like that.
And I definitely think it is positive to encourage people to be respectful or just decent, in public, f.ex. public transportation.
But I think this should be a normal way of being with people ,and especially people you love.
Anyway, so chivalry as the number one sexist offence is a mra fantasy;
and also a derailing tactic.
No. Chivalry is patronising, belittling and irrelevant. Why does it need to be called chivalry? What about basic, common respect? Women can take care of themselves. It just reaffirms the whole ‘men are strong, men need to look after women’ cave man 101 misogyny.
For example, men get told they ‘hit like a girl’ if they’re weak. Chivalry then encourages men to open doors for women, open jars for women, offer seats to women, etc. What this communicates is that women are weak all together. Men are not threatened by women. They are threatened by other men.
WHA…? I am convinced this anonymous was fake….it sounds like a straw feminist to me..
a) the person makes it sound like they are living with their mum (go tells mum about issues with the brother) yet has never been with him on a bus before ? He has to tell him/her about this?
b) that mum-explanation “totally makes sense?” I can’t imagine a real (in the sense of not fictional) feminist saying this makes sense.
c) offering seats to women is more or less a myth, like the myth that “women and children first” is a thing in naval accident history. People are encouraged to offer their seats to elderly, disabled, or people with children. I have never read on any transportation system that women should be offered seats.
ETA: And Pregnant women, yet again, this is reasonable and applies to both men and women offering seats to those who need it more. Thats human decency.
d) But okay, that might just be my experience, and maybe here and there, men do make this “acts of chivalry”.
Only men inventing straw feminists or other people who want to catch a feminist in a logical fallacy (lol) take something so rare and so irrelevant and act like we’d be profiting so much from chivalry and as if we as feminists are complaining so much about it.
e)I absolutely agree with radfemales critique of chivalry and what it signifies. I just want to point out that the concept of chivalry and its analysis is NOT a major point in feminism. It is a part of questioning a whole system of opression. Chivalry is basically a “benevolent” side-effect of patriarchy, and only mras act as if we wouldn’t know this.
"As long as some men use physical force to subjugate females, all men need not. The knowledge that some men do suffices to threaten all women. He can beat or kill the woman he claims to love; he can rape women…he can sexually molest his daughters… THE VAST MAJORITY OF MEN IN THE WORLD DO ONE OR MORE OF THE ABOVE."
— Marilyn French (her emphasis)
"Mitochondrial DNA is, uniquely, passed on only by mothers. Researchers at the University of California at Berkley studied mitochondrial DNA in 147 people from different parts of Europe, Asia, North Africa, and the Middle East, with ancestors from sub-Saharan Africa, Australia, and New Guinea. Mutations in these samples showed that the entire human race is descended from a single woman: There was an Eve! The Berkley group estimates that she lived in Africa 285,000 to 143,000 years ago, that human (Homo sapiens sapiens) life began in Africa, and that the species left Africa, at the earliest, 135,000 years ago. A later researcher challenged this chronology, arguing that our foremother could have lived anywhere between 100,000 and 1 million years ago. “Eve” was not the first woman in the world, but the first whose daughters gave birth to daughters who transmitted their DNA. The new species coexisted for eons with other species that eventually died out. We who live today, whatever our color, stature, or body type, are truly siblings, descended of a woman who was the mother of us all."
— Marilyn French, From Eve to Dawn (via goneril-and-regan)
the whole idea of daddy issues makes me so uncomfortable? like your father abandoned you, you had a bad relationship with him or he abused you and we created a term to shame, humiliate and laugh at you for dealing with the emotions that come with that