Does it ever make you ever feel depressed that men have more variation in IQ? That means even though there will always be more male idiots, there will also be more male geniuses. So women can excel in any field, but a man will almost always be the "best" in it. It just makes me feel inferior every time I think about it, way more than strength difference does. Not only that, but they also have higher variation in all types of brain structure. That would mean men are naturally more diverse, personality-wise.
Sometimes I get into these negative thought processes about stupid shit and it totally consumes me. This is my latest one... Please help
Hmm.
Well firstly, IQ is a completely fake concept designed specifically for eugenicist purposes. You can train for an IQ test, your score can change depending on the day, and your score doesn’t mean anything apart from how good you are at IQ tests. It’s not a measure of intelligence, and ‘intelligence’ isn’t real anyway - as in, there is no such quality of uniform intelligence. I think it stands to reason that the highest IQ scores will be from men, because the tests are constructed around a fundamentally male world-view and value system as well as a white one. And that is what depresses me more - that ‘intelligence’ is viewed as some innate quality that only oppressors can possess so they can prove that they deserve their place in a meritocracy. It’s like that controversy about men winning more at Jeopardy than women - the world is structured around male interests and values, so men achieve in mainstream contests and use that to retroactively justify the legitimacy of those values and interests in the culture.
I’m less interested in the concept of a man beating a woman at certain activities because of him being smarter than her, than I am about him beating her because he's socialised from a young age into enjoying and valuing those activities - but also often regardless of his actual performance, he's also by default assumed to be better and more competent than her purely because he's a man. Take for example that study where when they did blind auditions for orchestras, men still got in more than women, but when they put carpeting down so women's heels couldn't be heard, there was finally a more equal ratio of women getting in. Or those studies where identical CVs given out and names that are typical of women, black people etc. get seen as less competent than those with male and white names.
We don't live in a world where we can objectively measure men's 'natural' abilities at anything psychological. But we do live in a world where we know that women's skills are massively undervalued - women have all sorts of intelligences that make the world run round; we're excellent negotiators, we're less violent, we're great at remembering, we have greater compassion, we make good leaders, we are more responsible, we have greater tact, we are safer in the workplace, we're more conscious of social issues and the environment, etc. etc. And none of what we have is seen as 'intelligence'; in fact, quite the opposite - many of our intelligences are dismissed outright as sentimentality and pearl-clutching.
Once again, though, I don't believe these traits are uniform across all women, or that they're 'natural' to us, just as men's traits aren't 'natural' to them. In the nature-nurture debate, there are too many factors in nurture that can't be realistically measured - and I have a suspicion that for many, feminists included, simply saying that men and women naturally possess certain traits is an easier narrative to swallow, because for many women the fear exists that if men can be socialised to be better, then dismissing them as evil would be morally wrong. But I don't think people need to be intrinsically, ontologically evil for us to dismiss them as oppressors - I simply judge by behaviour, which is more measurable.
Going back to intelligence, I think it's also worth saying here that women are socialised into not recognised or appreciating our skills, and to partake in behaviours that psychologically hobble us. Take for example in that orchestra study - under a feminist lens, wearing heels is a form of hobbling that's both literal and psychological. The woman is performing a feminine ritual, wearing a physically debilitating item that submissively marks her as a woman. Not to say that she would be respected more if she was gnc, but I find it interesting how women accidentally lost their spot on the orchestra in the study because their performative clothing made them noisier and easier to recognise as women. And on top of that, we have stereotype threat - there was a study done where men and women were performing some sort of test, and in one half they were in normal clothes, and the second they were in swimwear. In the second one, women performed more poorly than they did in the first, and men saw no change. Once again, we have two inexorably interlinked factors at play, here - women's swimwear is not built for utility but rather to be sexy, and women's bodies are considered inherently sexual; that's not to say that if women were wearing men's swimwear they'd do better at the test, but rather women are socialised to be self-conscious of themselves but also expected to show more skin - we're expected to dumb ourselves down in the name of being sexy.
The upside in all of this is that the moment you recognise that these things aren't set in stone, and rather that these are all skills you can develop if you gain confidence in yourself, you develop a robust sense of self that you can be comfortable and happy with regardless of external measure of male-approved success. I, for example, found confidence in myself and my writing, and now I'm finding success and getting praise online by women on tumblr. It seems you're best finding yourself environments surrounded by other women, especially feminist-minded women who are consciously choosing to fight against established biases by valuing the skills of women that are undervalued by society. Devaluing male interests and achievements in your own head is something you can also do, and I once again recommend feminist spaces as an excellent opportunity to de-program (obligatory plug for my side blog @learningwomanhood where I do exactly that).
For me, the biggest wisdom to be gained from feminism is the psychological distancing yourself from male thought - the more things you reject that you once unthinkingly believed to be normal, the more you feel that you can truly be human, vibrant, unconstrained; and the more silly the whole enterprise of patriarchy looks. It's not nice that rejecting patriarchy means rejecting mainstream society, but the older you get the more you realise that you simply can't dwell on these things and instead have to do what benefits you within it; nobody is owed a perfect existence, and once you realise that you have to choose a life for yourself and choose to be happy with that, your life will be much more comfortable. In the end, life is all about the gestures of love you make to yourself and others. When you realise that it's your job to be your own best friend, you can carry that energy with you your whole life; you will be inpenetrable because all that matters to you, no matter what situation you're going through or what hell you're in, is that you made decisions that showed love to yourself. That could be considered a form of intelligence - perhaps wisdom itself is a form of intelligence that is devalued specifically because it's female-coded. But wisdom sounds like nothing until you internalise it - all the language in the world can't seem to really get to its essence until something inside you clicks and you understand it.
One thing I would like to say is that those negative thought processes you have are not stupid: they are a valuable part of your processing of the world and are worth attention. We have this cultural idea that with regards to mental health, the parts of us that are 'real' and 'valid' and 'truly us' are all the good parts, and the negative thought processes and patterns of behaviour are like cancerous tumours that need to be artifically removed. One of the best things I ever did for myself is to take myself seriously - because that's my prerogative, as myself and my own best friend. The only thing 'bad' thing about those thought processes is that they cause you distress; that's it. So, then, it's up to you to decide how much you want to indulge in them. I find the best way to really tackle unpleasant behavioural patterns is to simply do them shamelessly, because clearly a part of you wants to do them anyway; one of the first ways I got out of my depressive spirals was to decide that I was going to do all the depressive actions (stay in bed, eat junk food etc.) but simply embrace that those are things I want to do and not feel guilty or sad about it. That way, the depression hasn't consumed me and instead I have made a choice - I have reformed my relationship with myself as an active agent and a made a choice to show love for myself through the gesture of taking my desires seriously, not dismissing them as 'mentally ill'. I could go on but the point is that all of your head is necessarily you - as in, it doesn't come from anywhere else but you, and therefore all of it should be respected and valued. Mainstream society won't tell you that - there's always supposed to be a limit, there's always something that's 'unhealthy' in some sort of metaphysical sense, there's always a part of you that's supposed to be beholden to some external standard, that keeps you feeling insecure and needing validation. But there is no true objective measure of a healthy mind; the only thing that matters is if you're comfortable with yourself, and you can always make gestures of love to yourself regardless of your situation.
35 notes
·
View notes
okok not to cdroolish post constantly but the fact that all of Foolish's time on the smp Dream has been this lingering figure over it that he just doesn't quite get. Dream is this boogy man, this villain, this horrible creature locked away that he's never even met, never spoken too. From what he's heard, he has to be his enemy but Foolish just. doesn't know.
All Foolish has to go on is outside information, and then all he has is this obscure, impossible to pin down god who just so happens to look exactly like the person everyone is afraid of. And it doesn't make sense and it doesn't fit together, but it's all Foolish has, ya know?
And then he meets him, and Dream just instantly contextualizes so much in a single conversation. Dream may have done horrid shit, but so has Quackity. So has Sam. Suddenly, the lines aren't so clear cut. Suddenly, Dream isn't the only villain on the server. Everyone is a scumbag. Everyone is an asshole just doing what they think they have to.
AND GOD! it's that moment that I want to chew on forever because no one else has broken it down like that for Foolish before. Everyone else is painting themselves in a good light, the right choice, or at the very least Dream as the big bad, and then Dream, who knows who he is and what he's done, just outright says that no, everyone has skeletons in their closet. And I think that's hard for Foolish to hear because he's constantly grasping for reasons to not do what he has to do. He is someone who constantly chooses kindness, who everyone gets along with, and whose greatest threat is an undefinable eldritch being who mind controls his friends, so it's not even their fault that they killed him! So for him to find out that behind his back, someone he trusted was torturing someone who is supposedly the worst person on the server? UGH INJECT IT INTO MY VEINS
that's why I like them so much, because Dream functions has this really potent wakeup call for Foolish and draws into questions a lot of what Foolish refuses to do and why he refuses to do them. They're fun little narrative foils for one another and I love that. also "one big happy family" 🤝 "everyone getting along like they use to"
176 notes
·
View notes
Not exactly a dadstarion truther either (mostly bc it took me a while to actually warm up to the idea and also hes NEVER having kids with my durge, only my tav (can you imagine this man parenting a Bhaalspawn? A dhampir Bhaalspawn?? Nonono.)) But I do find something a little compelling about the thought of this man who a) has had absolutely nothing of his own for as long as he can remember and b) sees himself as worthless and irreparably fucked up creating this tiny new person? Like, they're part of him, he made this precious little creature (with the person he already loves most)? This soft and innocent thing? (Which he would waffle awfully between wanting to keep innocent for as long as possible but also making sure they know about life's horrors so they can avoid them) Like sure the baby version is annoyingly loud and can't do anything and also gross and smells but he can teach the toddler to bite people. He is the absolute worst enabler, spoils the kid rotten. Teaches them to steal and pick locks and just lets them get away with murder. Parent #2 has to do all the actual parenting part cuz damn he's not doing the discipline thing at all.
Also the vain part of him likes looking at his kid and sort of seeing some of his face in them, since he can't use an actual mirror.
Well he'd be cured by the time he has the kid or soon after in my canon, so that last part wouldn't apply for me.
And yeah, when I say that I'm not a dadstarion truther I don't mean that I don't see it happening ever, but more that to me, that first step in itself is the one that I see as least likely.
Because I can accept that he would learn to love the kid, that he would care about it and spoil it. I can also accept (and would gladly explore) him having a complicated relationship with the kid, either early on in a postpartum depression sort of way, or further down the line in a "I can't find common ground with my teen/young adult" sort of way (or both lbr).
The problem, to me, is that I don't see Astarion going "let's have a kid!" I don't see him genuinely wanting one, and I don't see him finding any reason to lie about wanting one, and I don't see Hira believing any of those lies even if he does try. It's really the initial hurdle. The rest I'm happy to make as dysfunctional and weird as it would realistically be when a guy who shouldn't be a dad becomes a dad. One of the reasons I came up with Critter is because I find it compelling how much Astarion is not a dad guy, and how that would fuck up a person like Critter. That's juicy stuff. And also a way for me to work out my own daddy issues I guess lmao.
But getting that started? Actually inventing a reason for how Astarion would even agree to it? That's where I struggle. And that's why I'm torn. Cuz I do want to stay true to my own interpretation of a character, while also wanting to create a new character and put them both (and also Hira) in situations.
Like I'm happy for all the dadstarion peeps who have cool dhampir girlies running around on adventures and I'd love to join them, but I also think that if I were true to Astarion's characterization, that kid would have issues. Like maybe a lot of them.
8 notes
·
View notes