a-crow-with-rights-and-anxiety

[a-crow-with-rights-and-anxiety]

international people start calling our country aotearoa instead of new zealand challenge

[a-crow-with-rights-and-anxiety]

[a-crow-with-rights-and-anxiety]

It’s very strange seeing people use ‘theyfab’ as a ‘progressive’ and ‘okay’ term. Like damn. Transmeds and 4channers have been using that word for years to describe ‘cis women who pretend to be nonbinary to be quirky’

[a-crow-with-rights-and-anxiety]

every holocaust memorial day, i always ask people to keep romani people in their thoughts, but this year i’d like to clear up some misconceptions that i see every year w/ a psa

romani people are not white. we’re south asian (from northern india), and each subgroup has a unique racial makeup of asian/white/etc, in different amounts. this is also why we vary wildly in physical appearance/skintone

we still face oppression. what we face, especially in europe, can still be constituted as attempted genocide, as we’re forced to live in hazardous conditions or to give away our children, be sterilized, etc just for the crime of being roma

the ‘g slur’ isn’t just an american issue. the reason some european roma prefer the slur is because, in many countries, there is no term for roma that isn’t a slur, and it’s either the g slur or the literal translation of the n word. i’m romanian, and if you used the slur in my hometown, you’d get slapped, since we just use ‘roma’.

we live in every continent across the world. some of the largest romani populations exist in south america, predominantly in brazil. they are no more and no less roma than their european counterparts, and they, like romani in asia, africa, etc all face unique challenges and oppression.

we’re the largest ethnic minority in europe, and yet have almost no political power, no land ownership power (in some places, we’re forbidden from owning land entirely), etc. with very few reputable charities- a lot of us reject charity by principle, as well as there being a general lack of education about us- the best thing you can do to help romani people is to just spread information, and help individuals when you can.

[a-crow-with-rights-and-anxiety]

Transphobes hate us whether or not we go by neopronouns. You are not quirky or cool because you hate neopronouns & the people who use them.

We will never meet their expectations, so accusing certain trans people as being the problem makes you just as bad as transphobic people.

You don't have to understand it to be respectful. Calling someone "xe/xem" or "bun/bunself" isn't going to make you combust into a million pieces. As long as they aren't hurting anyone, let them live.

[a-crow-with-rights-and-anxiety]

on this day, 6 yrs ago, bruno mars was surprised to see pete wentz

[a-crow-with-rights-and-anxiety]

One of the most important aspects of the aromantic community as a movement is championing the belief that "friends can be just as important and fulfilling as romantic partners."

My problem with this is that a majority of the aromantic community takes that to mean friendships are fulfilling and important instead of the full meaning of the phrase.

However, what the meaning of the original phrase says is both "friendships are fulfilling and important", and, "friendships don't have to be important and fulfilling at all."

It says both "Friendships can be fulfilling enough to fill the emotional need that alloromantics fill via romantic partners", and "If romantic partners are not important, then friendships can be just as unimportant as romantic partners."

However due to the general phrasing of the question it skews the interpretation to only include the first meaning. I think it should be "Human emotional need and the way it becomes fulfilled is highly varied, and that's a fact of our species" but I think that comes with the drawback of being a Bit Too Radical (TM) for the average uninformed person, so in practice I think as friendships are recognized as equally or more fulfilling as a romantic relationship, we should shift to that "human emotional need is varied" as a next step.

Overall, I just have a general distaste for the way most people think only other people can fulfill one's emotional needs. Pets and hobbies and books and art and shows and games can all fulfill those emotional needs as well. But the average person would laugh at you if you said your emotional needs are fulfilled by wikipedia.

My emotional needs are extremely fulfilled by reading about cyanobacteria and microplankton, thank you

[a-crow-with-rights-and-anxiety]

why are french people rude?

Ah well, the safest explanation when an entire country’s people are stereotyped as rude is that they have their own culture with different criteria for politeness than the ones you are used to. It’s probably easier for Americans to forget this than for the rest of the world, because they consume less foreign media than the rest of us (from literature in translation to foreign films) and are less exposed to aspects of foreign cultures that could inform them about different norms of politeness (online interactions happen in their own language and follow their own (anglo) social codes.) With this insular worldview it’s easy to take it for granted that American good manners are universal. They are not!

A very common gripe against American tourists in Paris is that they talk so loudly in public spaces, which is definitely rude here but I assume that in the US, people just have a different threshold for what constitutes ‘loud’ (I wonder if it is due to being used to having more space than Europeans). I also remember a discussion I had with one of my translation professors about the American concept of ‘active listening’ and how negatively it is perceived in France. It may be that in the US it is polite to make ‘listening noises’ at regular intervals while someone is speaking to you, ‘uh huh’, ‘right’, ‘yeah’, ‘really?’, and that you would perceive someone who just stands there silently as disinterested or thinking about something else. In France it is more polite to shut up and listen (with the occasional nod or ‘mmh’) and it’s rather seen as annoying and rude to make a bunch of useless noise while someone is speaking.

There are of course countless examples like that. The infamous rude waiters in Parisian cafés probably seem a lot more rude and cold to people who have a different food culture… People from other cultures might consider a waiter terrible at his job if he doesn’t frequently check on them to make sure they don’t wait for anything, but the idea that a meal is a pleasant experience rather than just a way to feed yourself (esp when eating out) means we like having time to chat and just enjoy our table for a while, so we don’t mind as much waiting to order or for the next course. French people would typically hate if an overzealous waiter took the initiative to bring the note once we’re done with our meal so we don’t have to wait for it, as it would be interpreted as “you’re done, now get out of my restaurant.”

The level of formality required to be seen as polite is quite high in France, which might contribute to French people being seen as rude by people with a more casual culture. To continue with waiters, even in casual cafés they will address clients with the formal you and conversely, and won’t pretend to be your friend (the fact that we don’t have the American tip culture also means they don’t feel the need to ingratiate themselves to you.) I remember being alarmed when a waitress in New York introduced herself and asked how I was doing. “She’s giving me her first name? What… am I supposed to with it? Use it?” It gave me some insight on why Americans might consider French waiters rude or sullen! It might also be more accepted outside of France to customise your dish—my brother worked as a waiter and often had to say “That won’t be possible” about alterations to a dish that he knew wouldn’t fly with the chef, to foreign tourists who were stunned and angry to hear that, and probably brought home a negative opinion of French waiters. In France where the sentiment in most restaurants is more “respect the chef’s skill” than “the customer is king”, people are more likely to be apologetic if they ask for alterations (beyond basic stuff) as you can quickly be seen as rude, even by the people you are eating with. 

And I remember reading on a website for learning English that the polite answer to “How are you?” is “I’m fine, thank you!” because it’s rude to burden someone you aren’t close to with your problems. In my corner of the French countryside the polite thing to do is to complain about some minor trouble, because saying everything is going great is perceived negatively, as boasting, and also as a standoffish reply that kind of shuts down the conversation, while grumbling about some problem everyone can relate to will keep it going. (French people love grumbling as a positive bonding activity!)

Basically, before you settle on the conclusion that people from a different place are collectively rude, consider that if you travel there and scrupulously follow your own culture’s social code of good manners, you might be completely unaware that you are being perceived as obnoxious, rude or unfriendly yourself simply because your behaviour clashes with what is expected by locals.

[a-crow-with-rights-and-anxiety]

[a-crow-with-rights-and-anxiety]

anyone around me in any context: my main goal…

me to myself for the next ten seconds: don’t say it don’t say it don’t say it don’t say it

[a-crow-with-rights-and-anxiety]

Since the OP made their post unrebloggable (and blocked me. Both actions they are well in with their right to do)

I'm going to make my response it's own post because I think the point is important

-

As someone who is autistic and has BPD and CPTSD and loads of trauma yes you sometimes need to change how you interact with others to keep people around

When I was 13 I hit the few friends I had when I was angry

I had to change that in order to keep those friendships

When I was in my early 20s if I was losing an disagreement with my husband I would threaten to kill myself. My husband told me it hurt him and was cruel and manipulative behaviour, because it was.

So I worked hard to change that to keep my relationship

It's easy to say "I shouldn't have to change for others" and that's true to an extent. You shouldn't change your interests or passions or dim your light. And you should have space to be imperfect and flawed and not have to pretend your ugly bits aren't real. But if something you are doing it causing other people harm you kinda need to change that.

That's called "living in a society"

People adapt to each other and make space for each other in their lives. You adapt to them and they adapt to you

You start being more diligent about throwing away the empty toilet roll because it really bothers them. They start warning you before they run the blender because you hate loud noises

I stopped threatening to kill myself because I was mad I was losing an argument and my husband stopped being so vocally judgemental amount media he personally dislikes

There is a certain type of person who heard the phrase "your emotions are valid" and took that to mean "my emotional reactions and my behaviour are always objectively correct because my emotions are valid and if you have an emotional response or react to what I'm doing negatively then you are wrong and you can't be hurt because my emotions are valid"

And that's a recipe for disaster

Your emotions are valid to feel. They are how you feel and there are reasons you feel the way you do

However, your reactions and behaviour are something you can learn to control and can be irrational

We live in a society and we as people change each other as we interact and that isn't necessarily a bad thing

[a-crow-with-rights-and-anxiety]

disability rights involves the right to do fuck all. the right to be a useless member of society and STILL be loved and cared for and have a fair standard of living. human beings are not defined by the capital we produce.

[a-crow-with-rights-and-anxiety]

[a-crow-with-rights-and-anxiety]

:(

[a-crow-with-rights-and-anxiety]

Okay ik it's easy to use femdom as the big counterpoint when idiots (usually radfems) try to claim kink is about men hurting women, but also let's not forget about the agency of subs, maybe? Less "women can be dominant", more "being a sub doesn't equal being some poor helpless victim, you absolute dipshits"

Don't cease any ground to them. "Women can be dominant" and "submissives are equal participants in kink scenes whose submission is a role they choose to play". The denial of agency is literally what many radfem talking points depend on, don't let them get away with doing that to us.

[a-crow-with-rights-and-anxiety]

this was funnier in my head

[a-crow-with-rights-and-anxiety]

As far as I’m aware it’s not happened yet, but Humza Yousaf will be stepping down as SNP leader and First Minister.