theblackberrychalice

[theblackberrychalice]

St. Teresa's Church, Anacostia, Washington, D.C. (between 1909 and 1940) - National Photo Company Collection // Youth Group - Semler

[theblackberrychalice]

mouse eating the eucharist, c. 1185, from worksop bestiary in the morgan library & museum

[theblackberrychalice]

excerpt from The Book of Delights by Ross Gay (transcript under the cut)

Keep reading

[theblackberrychalice]

ouro preto, minas gerais, brasil: two girls during holy week, 1987 by claudia ferreira

[theblackberrychalice]

The Incredulity of Saint Thomas (detail) - Gerard van Honthorst, c.1620.

[theblackberrychalice]

Im addicted

[theblackberrychalice]

My urge.

Zayum! All these bitches want me back to school!

[theblackberrychalice]

I think this article falls frustratingly into substack disease with both the all or nothing title and also the sweeping generalizations about the past, which is annoying because there is the seed of a good point here. And the idea that something not being pathologized in a medical sense means that it was accepted is obviously false ("you are shy and stare at your feet when people talk to you not because you are your mother’s child, not because you are gentle and sweet and blush the same way she does, but autism"—okay but adults absolutely tormented "shy" kids in the past and thought they were disrespectful of their elders or just stupid. Of course that happens with autism too but it is weird to set it up as a dichotomy rather than a continuum.) Also, psychological pathologization isn't as recent as the author is making it sound, but in decades past people with severe psych diagnoses would be institutionalized, so she doesn't realize (or remember?) that they existed. Out of sight out of mind

I broadly agree w these parts though

We can’t talk about character either. There are no generous people anymore, only people-pleasers. There are no men or women who wear their hearts on their sleeves, only the anxiously attached, or the co-dependent. There are no hard workers, only the traumatised, the insecure overachievers, the neurotically ambitious. We even classify people without their consent. Now our clumsy mothers have always had undiagnosed ADHD; our quiet dads don’t realise they are autistic; our stoic grandfathers are emotionally stunted. We even helpfully diagnose the dead. And I think this is why people get so defensive of these diagnoses, so insistent that they explain everything. They are trying to hold onto themselves; every piece of their personality is contained within them. .

And it’s not only personality traits we have lost. There are no experiences anymore, no phases or seasons of life, no wonders or mysteries, only clues about what could be wrong with us. Everything that happens can be explained away; nothing is exempt. We can’t accept that we love someone, madly and illogically; no, the enlightened way to think is to see through that, get down to what is really going on, find the hidden motives. Who we fall for is nothing but a trauma response. “You don’t have a crush; you have attachment issues”. Maybe he reminds you of an early caregiver who wounded you. In fact there are no feelings at all anymore; only dysregulated nervous systems. Every human experience we have is evidence, and the purpose of our lives is to piece it all perfectly together. This is the healthy way to think, that previous generations were so cruelly deprived of.

But then comes this insane sentence: "My grandma is a grandma, a mother, a wife; we are attachment disorders." Wow it's so cool that your grandma's entire identity is reducible to her role in your family. "She is selfless and takes things to heart" I mean maybe you should think MORE about why "selfless" is the first word that comes to your mind to describe her. And then the bit about her grandparents not being able to articulate why they married each other... modern dating sucks but it's absurd to valorize the stories of couples who just happened to get married and made it work when lots of peeople (especially women) lived miserable lives in unhappy or abusive relationships. Also why is the writer assuming that she has an objective view of her grandprents' relationship when she characterizes her grandmother as "a grandma, a mother, a wife" and "selfless." Of course she wants to think that they have a happy relationship! And maybe they do, but perhaps the writer should not swear off looking for explanations entirely

I have seen tweets about how vulgar marxism and vulgar psychoanalysis are still like basically true, which I think is accurate to an extent, but vulgar antipsych drives me crazy. Now I'm mad and it's not even 9 am and it's this article's fault

[theblackberrychalice]

Zayum! All these bitches want me back to school!

[theblackberrychalice]

Under my Vatican, I will ban marriage.

[theblackberrychalice]

Sex is so gross I’m just gonna keep welding

[theblackberrychalice]

[theblackberrychalice]

[theblackberrychalice]

awesome news, everyone!!

[theblackberrychalice]

booktok YA n smut is one of those things where it’s rly hard to criticize it publicly for serious things like misogyny or racism or homophobia n how it enforces capitalism bc 99.9% of the backlash is ppl proclaiming the death of literature is coming bc women like to read porn. like I hate this as well but I hate it for a better reason that these ppl do.

[theblackberrychalice]

agnostic is lowkey the funniest belief system it's just like yeah idk it's none of my business

[theblackberrychalice]

you have a disgusting storytelling addiction