- 0 Posts
- 30 Comments
Well I hope that you amend your views before bringing a tiny new human into existence. I’m not saying that laws should be outright disregarded. I had limited time to make my response, so I didn’t go into much detail about RA’s approaches to co-parenting. I don’t intend to do so now.
Choosing to get law enforcement involved doesn’t break these rules. If a relationship is inequitable and people are in danger, and getting the police involved seems like the only option from one or more perspectives in the relationship, then that’s what should happen.
Another major factor within RA is the choice/ability to continue or discontinue relationships. And this element (like any other element of skillful RA) requires an ongoing commitment to communication. Checking in about the state of relationships. Choosing to deescalate a relationship for any number of reasons is a fully valid choice, whether due to time constraints, lack of commitment, over commitment, feeling unsafe, feeling codependent, literally anything; though, with the hope that people either won’t oversell an issue or understate it. Literally you’re “not feeling it” can be a valid reason to step back, but also that might be easier to work through than, say, “the way you handle conflict reminds me of ways my parent(s) used to invalidate my experiences of emotional distress before I was able to fully articulate my difficulty, and I can’t continue to relate with you so closely until we have boundaries and agreements in place regarding how you handle conflict.”
I’m guessing you don’t live in the US based on your last statement, and I would hazard a guess that things are indeed pretty different elsewhere, at least in regard to socio-political climate. That doesn’t necessarily invalidate RA as a system, but it likely (and probably greatly) changes the way one or more people may be supported or seen by the society they move through. The US is very patriarchal, but generally women are in less danger here than, for example, Yemen or Saudi Arabia.
Even if the politicos unironically started referring to themselves as oligarchs, a significant population of US citizens would likely either take it as a joke and hand-wave it away, or take it as further proof that that’s just what you do to get ahead.
I played too much Hades and am obsessed with the moon and am tomboyish and socially awkward
Reading this on the toilet, literally it’s toilet paper
Or, to bring Relational Anarchism to bear, a relationship is an ongoing interaction between people, sometimes even just with one’s own self. Then, having established that a relationship exists, the participants of this relationship may choose to define said relationship using whatever terms and conditions they feel are fitting. And here’s the clincher: nobody outside of the relationship gets to have any say in what ANY aspect of that relationship means. Friendship? That’s literally got “ship” in it, but parenthood? Also a relationship. Professional, personal, inter-personal, monogamous, non-monogamous, poly, aromantic, FWB… All valid terms to use, and not a single one of them can possibly define a relationship by itself.
1·12 days agoCongratulations! You have won The Internet today.
OK I’m actually a noob at formatting and i have no idea how i even did that giant text
This is crazy in the context of having just finished the Native Tongue trilogy by Suzette Haden Elgin. Great read or listen, describes the world this person imagines.
This feels like a poor response to the “would you rather be alone in the woods with a man or a bear” social profiler. “Yeah but that bear is fat, would you really want to be mauled by a fat bear instead of violated and gaslit by an aLpHa MaLe?!”
Trade =/= capitalism. Capitalism is maximum enrichment for a few at the cost of the many. “Capitalizing on an opportunity” doesn’t usually seem to get interpreted as “get what I need and hopefully what I want in an exchange that is equitable, just, fair, and negotiable to all parties”; instead, the common meaning seems to be “get all that I can as quick as I can in exchange for the least possible expense on my part”, which is not even a full step away from 'The Tragedy of the Commons, ’ or, “if there’s not enough for everyone to have as much as they want or need, then everyone who takes as much as they need is evil, and if someone is going to be evil AND ALSO have enough than that person is damn well going to be me.” THAT’S capitalism.
Such has been the present interpretation of the course of recorded history. Recorded most often by conquerors, looking favorably upon the the ends of their conquest to justify their means, and if you boil just about every single conquering ideology down for long enough, you will see two things, in this order: greed for what the conquered populace had, and fear of not having enough.
That’s not “human nature,” that’s a response to human nature. Most of us would probably generally prefer to go on living. For many people, that looks like “i just need my necessities covered and I’ll figure out the rest.” Historically this happened by banding together and looking out for one another, not by hoarding resources and making people do extra work just to fucking exist with a modicum of comfort in a society forever dangling a golden carrot to keep you distracted from the meat grinder. (Edit for formatting)
Thank you for bringing Rid Kock to my attention.
Oof yeah real. Especially in the US, mass and social media have most people focused on their own personal problems such that people don’t see this happening in the background. “Fascists in the Whitehouse, sure, but my car needs new tires and there’s that leak in the roof of the house that I’m living in even though it’s owned by someone else who owns multiple properties… Hey maybe I actually hate that more than politics, so I’ll just devote all my energy to that instead”
Ope. There goes the Pope.
Ope, there goes the Pope
It is me. I am that pokemon.
Ordinarily I’d be disgusted but I’ve been playing Monster Hunter Wilds.
Pilk ain’t got shit on Wylk
Oversimplifying methinks. Great for jokes, maybe not so much for education.
To be clear, I laughed at your comment, then felt inspired to expand upon and offer more synthesis of ideas in RA. No need to condescend my offer of additional detail.