Long post 

@feonixrift I used to feel similarly but

1) That's a lot more work to every of these interactions.
2) Depending on who you are, the amount of these interactions you would need to have each day can be wildly impossible to actually do. Making them more time consuming just means I'll do it less often.

3) This is a logical test you've set up to determine a thing. If there's one thing folk love to do, it's bandy about meaningless rhetoric to pass logical tests. Considering that is part of the problem being attacked, allowing more space for it seemed counterproductive.

4) You fall into my tomatoes accidentally, or kick them intentionally: I'm not sure. If it was intentional, what is the point of me explaining to you how to avoid doing it accidentally? If it's accidental, because you tripped on a stone, it really doesn't matter... whether you tripped on the stone because you were bringing me mail, or just walking by, or whatever. the stone is what matters.

So, summing back up in reverse order: what led you to express kyriarchism doesn't matter nearly as much as the kyriarchism, putting the conversation about what led to it first means it's unlikely there will be time or energy for the conversation about the held kyriarchism, and it means that instead of explaining akyriarchistic lifeways I'm pointing out rhetorical faux pas.

All for the benefit of "politeness," and... helping kyriarchists refine their thinking, which clearly allows them to get away with some awful shit already?? I really don't see why I'd do that! Not when saying "no don't do that or I won't talk to you" is an option.

I think you confused two things: I'm not having this conversation primarily to educate y'all.

I'm having it so I can maintain my boundaries without having to simply... stop talking to y'all. I have to do this so we can talk about delicious meals and stuff. That it educates y'all is just a side-effect, and one I'm not that interested in: to date, I have only seen that hurt me @woozle @starkatt

re: Long post 


Possibly what's happening here is that I'm using kyriarchy-based terminology without explicitly rejecting it?

Am I on track at all? I've been composing this through several further toots which I haven't had time to read and digest.

(I tend to frequently refer to ideas that I consider dubious at best solely for the purpose of acknowledging that "these ideas exist", and "we are surrounded by a social environment that not only respects them, but assumes that everyone else does too", which are facts that often suck and represent a need for change.)

@feonixrift @starkatt


re: Long post 

@woozle On track, but: even an explicit rejection still centers the kyriarchal way of living.

yea, we do gotta acknowledge it in some ways but, let it be in the ways it intersects with us: not assume it holds primacy over everything and everyone.

Rather than explicitly reject it to orient around it, try (it's hard but easier with practice) to orient around whatever is actually the thing being discussed. If we're talking about things we "have to" do, don't say you "have to devote your time toward maintaining a shell of normalcy."

You don't, right? You /have/ to eat, drink water, have shelter, and medicine. You have been coerced and trapped into only being able to get those things through the maintenance of that shell. That's life for you, but not life in the 2020s: other people have been trapped and coerced into very different ways of survival! It's important, I think (or I wouldn't keep making this conversation go on lol), to recognize that:

"having to devote 95% of my time toward maintaining an empty shell of 'normalcy' so the kyriarchy will allocate enough of its resources to me to continue buying survival from it"

Make the part where it's just a means to an end clear - and it's unfortunately clear that both the means AND the end are shitty...

Why's that matter?


"I spend 20% of my time devoted toward maintining a shell of normalcy and 75% of my time devoted toward basic survival so the kyriarchy doesn't kill me"

Is the exact same result: a not-dead person.

But the means and the ends are very different. And now we see things to really talk about: where's the differences in our life ways, our cultures, our philosophies, that lead to these different responses and capabilities to the same environment.

@feonixrift @starkatt

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Remap for the IndigenoUS

The entity responsible for the most genocide on indigenous peoples is Zuckerberg Platforms, Inc. Tortoise Mountaineers and Turtle Islanders deserve better; natives are the original Ecosteaders. Long before State governments wtih delusions about government-subsidized "blocks" of colonizer cash infrastructure, Native Land Before Invasion was organic and we never needed your dollars.

image/svg+xml image/svg+xml