hyperlexichypatia

[hyperlexichypatia]

A huge component of misogyny and kyriarchical oppression generally is restricting/policing women's partnerships with men -- which women are allowed to partner with men, which men they're allowed to partner with, whether they're allowed to stay together. And, yeah, feminist advocacy has to be about women's right to opt out of partnering with men, but it's also about women's right to partner with men of their choice on their own terms.

So if you, As A Feminist, respond to:

a woman in public housing complaining about being disallowed from having her boyfriend over

a disabled woman complaining about being disallowed from dating or being with her boyfriend or getting married

an unhoused woman being unwilling to go to a shelter and leave her husband behind

a woman whose husband was incarcerated, deported, or killed in war

with some variation of "Men, who needs them!"... you have lost the whole entire plot and are just doing misogyny (along with the obvious classism/ableism/racism).

And yes, those are all examples I have heard from self-proclaimed feminist In The Real Life. You have ended up on the same side as Ronald Reagan.

sure are a lot of ostensible Very Serious Feminist Critiques to the effect of "misogyny comes from straight women being too slutty"

[hyperlexichypatia]

I mean you made a recommendation about how people should handle their emotional distress right there, didn't you? They should repress themselves the way you repress yourself. If that fails for them, it's just a sign they were deficient people, although of course you'd never say that out loud, you'd just smugly imply it.

Show me where I smugly implied that.

Or where that would be consistent with anything I've said ever.

[hyperlexichypatia]

you guys are so annoying. why do i have to see discourse every year that's like "was tolkien really a woke king or was he your conservative uncle?" the guy was a devout catholic and a genteel misogynist who maintained lifelong friendships with queer people and women, and this isn't even paradoxical because that was part of the upper-class oxford culture he was immersed in. tolkien told the nazis to fuck off (and in doing so demonstrated a real understanding of what racism is and why it's harmful, beyond simply "these guys are bad news because they're who my country is at war with right now") but his inner life was marked by internalized racism that is deeply and inextricably woven into the art that he made. he foolishly described himself as an anarcho-monarchist, and it's kind of crazy to see people on this website passionately arguing that he likely never meaningfully engaged with anarchist theory, because...yeah, no shit, of course he didn't. tolkien didn't have to engage with most sociopolitical theory because as an upper-class englishman of his position, he was never affected by any of the issues that this theory is concerned with. what is plainly obvious from reading both his fiction and letters is that tolkien's ideal political system was that the divinely ordained god-king would rise up and rule in perfect justice and humility; he didn't want a government, he wanted a king arthur, even though (obviously) he was aware that outcome was impossible. why is it so hard for people to accept that he was just some guy! his letters aren't a code you have to crack. no amount of arguing or tumblr-level analysis is going to one day reveal a rhetorically airtight internally consistent worldview spanning jrrt's fiction, academic work, and personal writings, thereby "solving" the question of whether he was a woke king or your conservative uncle. his ideology was extremely inconsistent because, at the end of the day, he was just some guy.

[hyperlexichypatia]

Of all the possible answers here, the most unhinged is "It's only weird if you don't have permission."

What you do in your host's guest room with the door closed is your business, but ASKING PERMISSION? OR SPONTANEOUSLY OFFERING PERMISSION?? WHO DOES THAT?

Hypothetical scenario: Alex is visiting someone else's house overnight– a friend, relative, etc, NOT a sexual or romantic partner. Alex masturbates in private while there, using only their hands and/or toys that they brought from home. There's no trace of them doing this.

We ask your questions anonymously so you don’t have to! Submissions are open on the 1st and 15th of the month.

[hyperlexichypatia]

Hi! I have a question for you if that's ok. You mentioned hating places that focus on iq and I agree that iq how it is measured and thought of is incredibly flawed. But I also know that there's research that supports that the brains of so called "gifted" people work differently, and have much in common with ADHD and autism. What's your stance on that?

I personally think that "gifted" (hate that term) brains work differently and are neurodivergent but I don't think iq is an at all adequate way of measuring that. From my experience and what I've read "gifted" people are often also highly sensitive, can have difficulty finding social acceptance, have a very developed sense of justice, and have trouble functioning in the world. There's also a lot of overlap between people who are "gifted" and those who have ADHD and/or autism.

giftedness is a social construction tied, you're right, to constructions of a certain kind of 'high functioning" neurodivergent person. as someone marked as gifted and certainly framed as "highly sensitive" as a child, who received an autism diagnosis in adulthood (and should have as a child but did not due mostly to psychiatric misogyny) I'm familiar with this line of thinking.

i disagree with it. what value is there in reifying some kind of binary between the "non-gifted" and "gifted" brains, or the racist and anti-poor metric of "IQ," which is better described as a measure of certain types of reasoning and problem solving than of something as nebulous as "general intelligence"? it seems that the only value society would derive from some definite separation of different cognitive types would be to 1) better exploit them for profit and 2) better segregate the cognitive haves from the have-nots. see: special ed kids being relegated to futurelessness, whereas autistics who happen to be good at niche tasks gain conditional access to abled 'success' so long as they/we perform exceptionally.

i am not interested in the unique intricacies of my brain in comparison to some imagined non-gifted or non-autistic counterpart for the same reason i am not interested in finding imaginary genetic markers for "homosexuality" –– these ontological obsessions are actually very dark & sinister & eugenic at bottom, something you yourself refer to when you claim "autistic senses of justice" (as it were) are "very developed". (i won't go into an analysis of international development discourse in relation to individualized human development, but like....read about colonialism and so-called 'child races' ok?).

sure, i have difficulty functioning in a social world ableist by design, but this doesn't mean i am simply an alien who ought to be living in 3025. it means i share the responsibility of each person to use my unique gifts to improve the world as it is. that is how i want to think about the word "gifted." beyond functioning labels, iq, or these weird delineations between "smart kids and dumb kids". we all have gifts, abilities, and talents unique to us. we have the chance in our lives to learn to use them to build the world we want. but it's only by abolishing hierarchies of intelligence that we can each be the best versions of ourselves and show up for each other.

[hyperlexichypatia]

Since my Thing lately is noticing and highlighting when psychopathology terms replace non-medicalized terminology/frameworks in mainstream culture, I'm just struck by how, seemingly overnight, everyone started talking about "moral OCD" when 5 years ago they would've just said "being judgmental" or "guilt tripping."

What are your thoughts on moral ocd being pretty frequently a pathologisation of leftist beliefs especially how its discussed on this website but in psychiatric cirlces as well. Ive found alot of people in the antipsych space are kinda unwilling to tackle the issues w certain illnesses and ocd is one of them, which i think is strange when an enite subsect of it is dedicated to literally pathologising a strong sense of morality especislly in cases when it goes against societal standards

Very interesting subject ! I dont know a lot about it honestly so if others wants to add their thoughts I'd appreciate it !

__

I'm of the opinion that having a strong sense of morality (which differs from societal norms or which includes beliefs where you simply dont try to justify the status quo) is often pathologized! Not only with a label like ocd but also labels like autism and aspd .

Although I have to say that I personally also experience(d) leftist circles specifically as very moralistic . Theres lots of axioms and if you question them youre often immediatly excluded or seen as untrustworthy/bad /suspect . So I can also see how this environment/subculture results in anxieties around morals/ethics .

[hyperlexichypatia]

"Oh, so you intellectualize your problems instead of dealing with them?" Yes, obviously. What is it about me that would possibly make you think this is not an extremely intentional self-aware choice?

Because I talk a lot about antipsychiatry/ Mad liberation/ neurodiversity/ abolition, I get a lot of people asking for advice about their emotional distress or "mental health" issues, and, like... I am not good at giving advice on that. I'm not. And... I mean, look, I don't want to say I don't care. As a person, I care. I don't want you to be suffering! I care about that! But it's not... really relevant to the topic.

It's more like. If someone is talking about the social and political construction of marriage as a legal and economic institution, property rights, and the marriage equality movement, and you jumped in to ask "My wife and I fight all the time, do you think we should get divorced?" Like. That's a valid question! And maybe you should seek advice on that! But it's not actually The Topic.

And when I'm talking about the social construction of "mental health" and psychiatric oppression and the legal and cultural implications of conceptualizing cultural issues as a function of "the brain" and the invocation of "the brain" and "intelligence" and "mental health" moral panic to justify infringement of civil liberties... and you ask me "But I'm really depressed, so what should I do about that?" Like. It's not that I don't care! I do care! I don't want you to be depressed! It's just not that relevant to what I'm talking about, and also, I'm absolutely, I cannot emphasize this enough, supremely unqualified to give advice on that topic.

To be abundantly clear, I don't mean that I'm unqualified to give advice on that topic because you should ask a therapist or psychiatrist instead. My whole point is that they also probably won't help you with this. But that doesn't mean I can. I mean. For me personally, my entire strategy for dealing with emotional distress is a degree of emotional repression that would make Surak of Vulcan say "I think you're taking this a little far." But for some reason I'm not supposed to go around recommending that strategy.

But if I say that, then I get "Oh-HO, so you throw stones at psychiatry, but you don't offer any alternative solutions to the problem!" which. To be clear. I don't accept the framing of. I don't believe that the intent or function of psychiatry is to solve the problem of emotional distress. The intent and function of psychiatry is to classify humans into Correct and Incorrect Cognition-Types, and draw boundaries around which Cognition-Types are so Incorrect that those people can ethically be stripped of all human rights. Any effect, positive or negative, on emotional distress, is purely incidental. And, you see, I do, in fact, have an alternative solution to the problem -- the alternative solution is to abolish the concept of Correct and Incorrect Cognition-Types and extend human rights to all humans. I don't feel especially obligated to come up with an "alternative solution" for human emotional distress, because that's a largely unrelated problem.

But I hate saying this to people who ask me for advice on emotional distress, because it sounds like I'm saying I don't care about your problems. I do care. It's just not what I know about or can particularly offer any insight into.

[hyperlexichypatia]

Because I talk a lot about antipsychiatry/ Mad liberation/ neurodiversity/ abolition, I get a lot of people asking for advice about their emotional distress or "mental health" issues, and, like... I am not good at giving advice on that. I'm not. And... I mean, look, I don't want to say I don't care. As a person, I care. I don't want you to be suffering! I care about that! But it's not... really relevant to the topic.

It's more like. If someone is talking about the social and political construction of marriage as a legal and economic institution, property rights, and the marriage equality movement, and you jumped in to ask "My wife and I fight all the time, do you think we should get divorced?" Like. That's a valid question! And maybe you should seek advice on that! But it's not actually The Topic.

And when I'm talking about the social construction of "mental health" and psychiatric oppression and the legal and cultural implications of conceptualizing cultural issues as a function of "the brain" and the invocation of "the brain" and "intelligence" and "mental health" moral panic to justify infringement of civil liberties... and you ask me "But I'm really depressed, so what should I do about that?" Like. It's not that I don't care! I do care! I don't want you to be depressed! It's just not that relevant to what I'm talking about, and also, I'm absolutely, I cannot emphasize this enough, supremely unqualified to give advice on that topic.

To be abundantly clear, I don't mean that I'm unqualified to give advice on that topic because you should ask a therapist or psychiatrist instead. My whole point is that they also probably won't help you with this. But that doesn't mean I can. I mean. For me personally, my entire strategy for dealing with emotional distress is a degree of emotional repression that would make Surak of Vulcan say "I think you're taking this a little far." But for some reason I'm not supposed to go around recommending that strategy.

But if I say that, then I get "Oh-HO, so you throw stones at psychiatry, but you don't offer any alternative solutions to the problem!" which. To be clear. I don't accept the framing of. I don't believe that the intent or function of psychiatry is to solve the problem of emotional distress. The intent and function of psychiatry is to classify humans into Correct and Incorrect Cognition-Types, and draw boundaries around which Cognition-Types are so Incorrect that those people can ethically be stripped of all human rights. Any effect, positive or negative, on emotional distress, is purely incidental. And, you see, I do, in fact, have an alternative solution to the problem -- the alternative solution is to abolish the concept of Correct and Incorrect Cognition-Types and extend human rights to all humans. I don't feel especially obligated to come up with an "alternative solution" for human emotional distress, because that's a largely unrelated problem.

But I hate saying this to people who ask me for advice on emotional distress, because it sounds like I'm saying I don't care about your problems. I do care. It's just not what I know about or can particularly offer any insight into.

[hyperlexichypatia]

Cisgender people aren't okay.

I hate reddit so fucking much. Why are you like that? There's no such thing as "lady brain". It's not an inherent woman brain trait to keep track of household issues. It's not a physical gendered brain feature, it's not a gendered socialization feature.

You would also never say your wife has "man brain" if she was cisgender.

Also, why the fuck do you only care about it when she started transition? Why the fuck do you tighten your expectations for her right now in particular?

[hyperlexichypatia]

Also in 2002/3, if any American tried to push back on any of this rhetoric, even the mildest of "I dunno guys, this might be more complicated than he's making it sound," they were immediately met with "Are you saying the Iraqi government is good? So you're saying you agree with Saddam Hussein? You think he's a good guy? Did you know he kills people? Did you know he tortures people? Did you know he oppresses women? Are you saying those things are good? Huh? Huh? Are you saying Iraq is a free, peaceful country with social equality and a benevolent, beloved government? Huh?"

And

We're not gonna fall for THAT strawman again, right?

We're not gonna get derailed by "The Iranian government is oppressive/sexist/unpopular with the population/etc" RIGHT?

Bombing cities does not solve a country's internal repression.

[hyperlexichypatia]

Queer Palestinian Books for Pride Month 🍉

Just a reminder: we do exist. ♥️

Please consider sharing this post, whether to show your support for Palestine, to boost awareness of these books (remember, reading is revolutionary), or to show your audience that you offer a safe space. I know it may seem small, but it makes a difference. Trust me. ♥️

Have you read any of these queer Palestinian books? If not, which would you consider reading first? ❓

[hyperlexichypatia]

I know that "cognitive bias" is, like all psychological concepts, pseudoscientific and oversimplified at best. But, maybe it's just my bias (see what I did there), but I just think there's more... there-there... to the concept of cognitive bias as a motivator for people's decisions. Yeah, "People do X because of cognitive bias" is an oversimplification, often false, but there's sometimes some truth to it. By contrast, the contemporary pop-psych/neurobullshit explanations for behavior involving "dopamine," "the brain," "trauma," "hormones," and "addiction" are just a nothingburger.

I think cognitive bias is a much better explanation for why so many people fall into gambling habits than "dopamine" or "addiction," for example.

[hyperlexichypatia]

fuck these Vichy fucks.

It's entirely unsurprising that Bill Clinton endorsed his fellow sexual predator Andrew Cuomo. It's entirely unsurprising that the Democratic Party bosses are doing everything they can to rehabilitate Cuomo at the expense of a genuinely progressive candidate who actually gives a shit about people.

That doesn't make it any less disgusting, and it's one of the many reasons why I am absolutely done giving any money, or doing any campaigning, for this out of touch, feckless, garbage party.

Democrats as a party at like 36 points LESS popular than fucking Fascists who are kidnapping innocent people and terrorizing entire cities. Every fucking day they are handed a dozen opportunities to show us they believe the "AMERICA IS DOOMED IF YOU DONT SEND ME 27 DOLLARS" emails they spam us with every goddamn day, and every fucking day the useless, weak, pathetic "leadership" in the party wrings its hands and mulls writing a letter. Then they send us another e-mail.

America is under attack from a rogue president and his band of criminal thugs, and the one party that has the numbers and resources to do something about it is telling us to clap harder for their pointless speeches.

So, yeah, of COURSE those same "leaders" are going to prop up a man who is a serial sexual abuser, liar, and scumbag.

Democratic "leadership" are a bunch of Vichy Quislings who can't possibly be this stupid; this has to be a choice.

That's why the party is underwater. That's why the party is less popular than motherfucking FASCISTS.

I will vote against fascists, because that's my duty as an American. But I'm done financially supporting a useless party that can't fucking shoot straight and spends more energy attacking and destroying progressives and progressive policies than they do defending Democracy.

[hyperlexichypatia]

In the medium term we need to abolish the two party system but right NOW we need at least one of the two parties to not be fascist please.

I think that it's important than ever to seize control of the Democratic party and purge ghouls like Chuck Schumer who were calling for this attack. America needs an actual opposition to fascism.

[hyperlexichypatia]

Ahem... **flutters coquettishly**

[hyperlexichypatia]

As , the United States, potentially heads into another forever war I can only think of this quote.

[hyperlexichypatia]

A. Does your job involve the internet, books, news, or media of any kind? Does your personal life? Then censorship affects you and you should be aware of how the pro-censorship movement positions itself as "protecting children", and how that can and will affect your life too.

2. Way to imply that unemployed people, disabled people, young people, and people whose labor isn't counted as "a job" under capitalism don't have reason to be concerned about censorship.

iii. I still think framing censorship discourse primarily around "shipping" is a psyop to make censorship sound silly.

"Not anti, not proship, but an adult with a job"

Cool, so do you think someone's fiction preferences inherently correspond to real world beliefs or no? I promise you, you can squeeze that question into your work schedule.