hyperlexichypatia - Tumblr blog

[hyperlexichypatia]

Especially when the criticism is that Christian child abuse is bad because it doesn't subject children to secular forms of child abuse like coercive psychiatry.

Christianity and other religions can absolutely facilitate child abuse, as can any system in a world where children are essentially property, but if you're not challenging the children-as-property part, you're just asking "How should children be abused?" or "Who should have the right to abuse children?" rather than "Children shouldn't be abused."

people always associating Catholicism(/Christianity as a whole) with child abuse really rubs me the wrong way because it's like yea sure that's an issue, so do you want to talk about how systems of control over children foster child abuse in general? you want to talk about abuse in schools too? you want to talk about family abolition? you wanna talk some fucking youth liberation up in here? no? oh i see you only care when you can use it as some kind of dunk on religion. cool.

[hyperlexichypatia]

Also, caring for children (ones you created or otherwise) is important, valuable work that should be supported and compensated.

Not to mention that everyone in the working classes is "financially dependent on another person" under capitalism. The difference between you and a homemaker is a layoff. The difference between you and an unhoused person is a layoff plus a divorce. The difference between you and an unhoused disabled person is a layoff, a divorce, and an injury.

sometimes, when someone is criticizing the stay-at-home-wife movement being sold to young women by conservatives, it loses focus on the "selling you a repressive and authoritarian worldview" point and slides into... well... implicitly leaving disabled people to die.

and what i mean by that is, it's all well and good to say you should do everything in your power to make sure you're not financially dependent on another person... but what if "everything in your power" is "nothing?"

what if how society is structured means you have absolutely no choice but to be financially dependent on another person? what if it's that, or simply die? this is the choice disabled people are faced with. not even uncommonly... frequently. people who need full-time carers, or who have very expensive medication and assistive tech needs, or people who simply can't work in the current job structure, often have the choice of... well... find someone to be financially dependent on, or face a slow, painful death, usually without housing. even if you're lucky enough to get on a fixed income, it's never enough to even make monthly rent, and that's not counting the extra costs of food, toiletries, medicine...

in fact, a lot of disabled people (certainly notably women, but absolutely not limited to, and in fact i see this happen to trans men over and over again, and i've lost a dear transmasc friend because of this) are funneled into being stay-at-home parents and homemakers, forced to do all of the domestic labor and childcare in exchange for a roof over their head and access to their medications/assistive tech, and isolated in all the same ways tradwives are isolated. in fact, this even happens with leftist partners/parents. all the time, i see disabled people disappear from public life entirely, lose contact with all their friends, and consign themselves to a life of cleaning up after someone while struggling to handle their own health needs, even having their disabilities exacerbated and their lifespans shortened by the amount of domestic labor they're required to do.

but it isn't a choice... it can't be fixed by focusing on academia or work... and it's not due to buying into conservative propaganda. all i ask is, please remember this, and please never leave us out of these discussions.

[hyperlexichypatia]

Can you send links to anti-psych theory/literature I want to learn more

I am so, so bad at remembering books I've read, but I have read several on this list! https://www.goodreads.com/shelf/show/mad-studies

Honestly, even though it takes forever to read, "Madness and Civilization" by Michel Foucault is the classic for a reason. I recommend at least getting that one.

[hyperlexichypatia]

Also, none of these require intervention from bystanders or authorities. Nothing has to "be done."

If you are uncomfortable around people doing these things in a public place, and choose not to go to a public place where people might do these things, that is your choice, but it in no way indicates any obligation of anyone managing a public space to cater to you by excluding people who act "strangely".

There’s nothing inherently “scary” about someone talking to themself in public.

There’s nothing “scary” about someone rocking back and forth in public.

There’s nothing “scary” about someone pacing back and forth in public.

Some of y’all are just ableist.

[hyperlexichypatia]

can eugenics also apply to non human creatures as well? i remember seeing a tiktok talkong about their old toothless, death and blind dog and a vunch of people in the comments were suggesting it be put down despite their being no indication that the dog was miserable. everyone sorta just assumed that to be the case because being death and blind = not a life worth living (i dont agree with that)

Absolutely. Completely setting aside the question of whether nonhuman animals should have the same rights/legal status as humans (because that's a whole separate topic), the underlying ableist reasoning in how people talk about disabled nonhuman animals and "good breeding" and "bad breeding" and "responsible breeding" is just an outlet for the ableist, eugenicist attitudes they absolutely unquestioningly believe about humans.

While I'm saying things, this is also true of the way people talk about fat animals. Hearing people argue that patholgizing fat animals totally has nothing whatsoever to do with any unexamined fatphobia regarding humans is... always interesting.

It's also true of "intelligence." The way humans uncritically accept that "intelligence" is a. a real thing 2. a measurable/rankable thing iii. of which humans objectively have the most four. of which nonhumans can be ranked by how similar we think they are to humans Certainly betrays deeply, deeply ableist/neurobigoted assumptions about humans and intra-human dynamics.

Which, again, I'm not even approaching from an animal rights/welfare/liberation standpoint. I'm solely looking at how what people say about nonhuman animals reflects their underlying biases about humanity.

[hyperlexichypatia]

It's genuinely great that students at That One Private University are protesting the massacres in Palestine. Really. Good for them! We should all be protesting! Those students are doing everything right and nothing wrong! We should be talking about the censorship they're facing and the double standards with how actual neo-Nazis are treated.

But why are they the focus? Their intent isn't even to be the focus, it's to draw attention to ongoing war crimes. Why is American media covering students protesting war crimes more than they're covering the actual war crimes? Why is The Discourse now "Are the students going too far?" (no, they're not) rather than "Is the Israeli government going too far?" (YES, ABSOLUTELY)? Why are we talking about whether Private American College Students who support war crimes "feel unsafe" because of the unpopularity of their pro-war-crimes opinion, rather than whether victims of war crimes are actively actually physically unsafe?

They are also not the only people protesting this issue. There are plenty of working-class people also protesting. But now you've successfully reframed this as a rich-people issue.

Private college students are always, always a distraction. Even when what they're actually doing is a good thing. We can look at private college students doing good things and say "Good for them, the thing they are doing is good, and also, the fact that we're talking about this and not the actual problem is a distraction."

I am completely, unironically serious when I say that we should all boycott any news story focused on a private university.

Just don't read them. It's okay. We don't have to care about what people at private universities are doing.

There are no (private) "campus issues" that matter.

We can all stand up to this collective charade that private universities are somehow both Microcosms Of Society and also home to Strange Aliens to Objectify.

We don't have to care, let alone argue about, what people at private universities are doing, because they don't matter.

"What about people at private universities doing good things, like fighting climate change and opposing war?"

I promise there are people doing those same things at community colleges. Or town meetings. Or community groups or churches or temples or 4-H or literally anything that isn't a private university. You can write about those instead.

"What if private university students are gay or disabled or something else marginalized?"

I still don't care! I don't care if they're poor people there on scholarship! There are people in all of those demographics who aren't at private universities!

"But people who graduate from private universities control all the power in the world!"

Gee, that sounds like a serious social problem we should work on changing instead of validating that what goes on in private universities somehow matters (it doesn't).

So just don't read it. If we stop reading it, they'll stop writing it.

[hyperlexichypatia]

Yes! I can see why smaller worlds would be afraid of being either ignored or swallowed up, though. Like smaller countries in the E.U. This is what I think about when I can't sleep.

See, I actually really like the take that alien characters on Deep Space Nine (and also Discovery's first season) have that the Federation are basically like a sort of insidious, outwardly friendly, slow-motion version of the Borg Collective. I absolutely agree that it makes sense for certain outsiders to perceive them that way. But I also think that it's clearly not actually true; Earth is still Earth; Vulcan is still Vulcan; I assume that the other Federation world's would still be recognizably themselves if we had actually enough before-and-after data to compare them. You don't lose your culture just because it's only one of many.

[hyperlexichypatia]

I'm absolutely not disagreeing with you, but I am profoundly confused by this comment and I keep reading it to see if I'm missing something?

NPD

[hyperlexichypatia]

People with Whiny Bitch Disorder need to Get The Help They Need to Process Their Trauma and Correct Their Brain Chemistry.

The Help They Need will be getting beaten with a stick . There will be petitions for insurance coverage for the sticks. People will blame the housing crisis on lack of affordable sticks to beat people Suffering From Living With Being People Who Have Whiny Bitch Disorder.

If anybody tries to say "Hey, this construction of Whiny Bitch Disorder and the treatment of beating people with sticks is kinda messed up," they'll be called oppressive and ableist for trivializing this serious disorder and not helping people suffering from Whiny Bitch Disorder get the beatings they need.

NPD

[hyperlexichypatia]

I'm not into astrology, but I feel the same way as I do about any religion or spirituality or belief system: You do you, as long as you don't impose it on anyone else.

As with anything else, "I won't do X because of my belief system" = we're cool. "I won't let you do X because of my belief system" = we have a problem.

But many people don't even treat astrology as a "real" belief system in this respect? They treat it as a hobby. Which is fine, some people practice it as a hobby, but you don't get to restrict people's rights over your hobby, either.

a lot of queer people i know in real life are either into or open to talking about astrology but online i think ive noticed a lot more people who dislike astrology and im super curious to see if that holds up.

please reblog for sample size and elaborate in the tags if you want!

[hyperlexichypatia]

Shockingly, your parents are separate individuals from you who also have human rights, so yes, I can really say that no one should ever allow their parents to die.

Or their children. Or their spouse. Or any other familial relationship.

Being related to someone should not give you the right to kill them.

When people kill their family members, we generally call that domestic violence and consider it wrong.

Just to be clear, if your idea of an ideal future at any point involves killing disabled people or allowing disabled people to die- you're not a punk, you're a fascist. Hope that helps

[hyperlexichypatia]

This is generally good information except that OP says that psychosis is not a neurodivergence, which is false. "Neurodivergence" is defined as any mental difference from societal norms, of which psychosis clearly qualifies.

via thebooksmartbimbo on Instagram who is doing AMAZING work

Next person to tell me "uwu don't talk publically about your meds not working for you what if you scare off others from meds?" can come here and pay compensation for my emotional distress.

One psychiatrist worked out well for you? Many congratulations, the system still sucks. One police officer was nice to me too, I still know that entire system is rotten to the core. If you keep shutting down the very people you claim to protect then this isn't about advocacy it's about your need to hold some sort of morally high position backed by "science" and "rationality" (which, btw, has historically been weaponised against mentally ill, and especially psychotic people, to take away their agency).

[hyperlexichypatia]

From my partner: "So much American "social justice" discourse is just "I demand validation of my desire for vengeance." And like, OK, sure! We can validate the desire! But what will actually doing it do?"

[hyperlexichypatia]

[hyperlexichypatia]

It was also irreversibly destroyed when millennials (who definitionally, in 2024, are currently between the ages of 25 and 45) decided to transmute our economic precarity into internalized ageism and declare that we are Forever Children. While hating Actual Children. Because we've decided that the socially acceptable way to be a child is to be a 35 year old. It's... strange.

we all knew that any hope for millennials ✨breaking the cycle of abuse✨ and ✨raising their children right✨ was irreversibly destroyed when it became morally defensible to hate children (not hating the complex structures of misogyny and heteronormativity that cause people to feel obligated to have children regardless of whether or not they actually want them, not being morally opposed to the inherent power imbalance of the parent-child relationship, but just hating the concept of children existing near you at all) but it truly is ghoulish to see it beginning to unfold in real time. generation alpha get behind me i'll protect you

[hyperlexichypatia]

Welcome and I love you all. Fight the power.

We ask your questions so you don’t have to! Submit your questions to have them posted anonymously as polls.'

[hyperlexichypatia]

Daisy, this is why people don't trust you.

Me, running down the street, caked in blood but somehow ecstatic almost to the point of intoxication: "REJOICE! REJOICE! All identities are cancelled! All taboos and covenants are dissolved! The age of the human is over! There is only the Hive! ONLY THE HIIIIIIIVE!!!!!!!"