For Men* Who Desperately Need Autonomy
August 2, 2016 9:34 AM Subscribe
Nora Samaran writes on men, autonomy, and how it is created, not taken. "Emotionally immature men who believe that autonomy is something you take, rather than something you create, may live their lives in a continual nightmare of ‘needs they can’t meet’ that they never come to understand."
Part Two: The Tricks of Shame and Hope
Some of this - especially the second part about distorted thought patterns rings true to me, but it's hard to get over the very very snowflakey theme of the first article.
At first I thought it annoyed me because, regardless of asterisks, it is very gender essentialist. But the more I got annoyed with the assumption that #yesallwomen are quivering balls of need that men must work to coddle and protect in order to have "safe" relationships, the more I realized that this isn't about women at all, it's about her.
She has "a serious abuse and neglect history and serious attachment trauma," and apparently needs to be able to demand loving acts like physical proximity and cuddling on her own timeline in order to feel safe. And the way that her SO responds to those demands, when made, helps her feel more comfortable not making them from him all the time. That's fine, and I'm happy that she's found someone who can meet those needs for her. But she treats these needs as universal, which they are not.
But there's nothing in the piece about the ability for her SO to set his own boundaries, and expect them to be respected without making her feel "unsafe." It seems that she's the only one who gets to have any agency around the question of "safety" in the relationship.
It's possible, and I might even go as far as to say mandatory for a healthy life, to feel "safe" in a relationship without needing to trust that your partner will always put your needs ahead of his/her own. I mean, obviously a loving relationship should include being open to and caring about the needs and wants of the other party. But I can't imagine being in a relationship with someone who couldn't, when the rubber hits the road, take care of their own needs (and I'd like to believe the same about Mr. Motion).
So, autonomy isn't something that is "created," or something that's "taken." It's a thing that both people in the relationship possess, and should be able to choose to exercise it at will (with caveats, of course, around situations where one person's autonomy means hindering the other's -- I'm thinking Spouse A gets jet-setting job and is gone all the time so Spouse B is stuck with childcare duties, and the like). Similarly, if one person autonomy is a thing that people can (and should at times) choose to surrender. And every relationship should have it's own balance.
posted by sparklemotion at 10:56 AM on August 2, 2016 [40 favorites]
At first I thought it annoyed me because, regardless of asterisks, it is very gender essentialist. But the more I got annoyed with the assumption that #yesallwomen are quivering balls of need that men must work to coddle and protect in order to have "safe" relationships, the more I realized that this isn't about women at all, it's about her.
She has "a serious abuse and neglect history and serious attachment trauma," and apparently needs to be able to demand loving acts like physical proximity and cuddling on her own timeline in order to feel safe. And the way that her SO responds to those demands, when made, helps her feel more comfortable not making them from him all the time. That's fine, and I'm happy that she's found someone who can meet those needs for her. But she treats these needs as universal, which they are not.
But there's nothing in the piece about the ability for her SO to set his own boundaries, and expect them to be respected without making her feel "unsafe." It seems that she's the only one who gets to have any agency around the question of "safety" in the relationship.
It's possible, and I might even go as far as to say mandatory for a healthy life, to feel "safe" in a relationship without needing to trust that your partner will always put your needs ahead of his/her own. I mean, obviously a loving relationship should include being open to and caring about the needs and wants of the other party. But I can't imagine being in a relationship with someone who couldn't, when the rubber hits the road, take care of their own needs (and I'd like to believe the same about Mr. Motion).
So, autonomy isn't something that is "created," or something that's "taken." It's a thing that both people in the relationship possess, and should be able to choose to exercise it at will (with caveats, of course, around situations where one person's autonomy means hindering the other's -- I'm thinking Spouse A gets jet-setting job and is gone all the time so Spouse B is stuck with childcare duties, and the like). Similarly, if one person autonomy is a thing that people can (and should at times) choose to surrender. And every relationship should have it's own balance.
posted by sparklemotion at 10:56 AM on August 2, 2016 [40 favorites]
I love this. My phone auto corrected that to "I live this" and there's some truth to that too.
Unlike the author, I recommend reading part 2 first.
When I read part 1, I didn't really know what she was talking about and I don't identify with either party portrayed. It seems like there's some idea of a single ideal relationship in part 1 that I don't really agree with. Either that or what she is talking about is just too foreign to me. Perhaps both.
But part 2... When I read part 2, I found so much of myself in it that I started crying part way through.
I've gotten a lot better over the years. I've healed a lot. I don't react in these ways as much any more. I treat people much better than I used to, but I still have a ways to go.
/standard phone post typo disclaimer.
posted by yeolcoatl at 11:03 AM on August 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
Unlike the author, I recommend reading part 2 first.
When I read part 1, I didn't really know what she was talking about and I don't identify with either party portrayed. It seems like there's some idea of a single ideal relationship in part 1 that I don't really agree with. Either that or what she is talking about is just too foreign to me. Perhaps both.
But part 2... When I read part 2, I found so much of myself in it that I started crying part way through.
I've gotten a lot better over the years. I've healed a lot. I don't react in these ways as much any more. I treat people much better than I used to, but I still have a ways to go.
/standard phone post typo disclaimer.
posted by yeolcoatl at 11:03 AM on August 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
This contains a really fascinating analysis of masculinity, one that is novel to me (I am a dude); I feel that I'm learning from it, or at least putting together some things that I'd only thought of dimly and apart before, if that makes sense. Thank you for posting it.
posted by clockzero at 11:06 AM on August 2, 2016
posted by clockzero at 11:06 AM on August 2, 2016
I don't want or need autonomy. Maybe it's because as my therapists and counselors have always observed, I'm psychologically more female than most men who don't identify as trans, but I prefer to think of myself in terms of my social relations and really find the whole cultural insistence on the unquestioned value of individualism and autonomy here in the US off-putting and socially destructive.
posted by saulgoodman at 11:13 AM on August 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by saulgoodman at 11:13 AM on August 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
The nightmare-inducing needs that can't be met aren't the man*'s own needs, but the needs of the author or another romantic partner. The subtitle of the site is "Dating Tips for the Feminist Man".
Worthwhile topic in it's own right and all, but if your issues around autonomy involve nightmare-inducing needs of your own you feel you can't meet, outside of the context of any romantic relationship, this writing doesn't attempt to address that.
posted by Sockpuppet Liberation Front at 11:15 AM on August 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
Worthwhile topic in it's own right and all, but if your issues around autonomy involve nightmare-inducing needs of your own you feel you can't meet, outside of the context of any romantic relationship, this writing doesn't attempt to address that.
posted by Sockpuppet Liberation Front at 11:15 AM on August 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
Or maybe it's just because my disability (severe ADD) is easier to manage with social/family support, I don't know: either way, the American ideal of independence is more socially harmful than useful, is environmentally and economically less efficient as a way to organize a society, and there just really aren't any benefits to it.
posted by saulgoodman at 11:16 AM on August 2, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by saulgoodman at 11:16 AM on August 2, 2016 [5 favorites]
If instead of greeting my normal, meetable needs as what they are: normal and meetable, he were instead to get angry with me because I need him, or to try to ‘teach’ me not to rely on him by being unreachable, he would find his carefully-built autonomy evaporating.
What in the hell is this? This article reads like one long apologetic of her particular relationship with this guy.
posted by gehenna_lion at 11:28 AM on August 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
What in the hell is this? This article reads like one long apologetic of her particular relationship with this guy.
posted by gehenna_lion at 11:28 AM on August 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
Seconding ghenna_lion. I couldn't find any references to real sociological data, real gender psychometrics, or even a reference to coherent theories of personal autonomy in post-capitalism.
I did find one person's apologia for one particular relationship. Expanding insights from that to encompass all of masculinity strikes this reader as deeply unwise.
posted by mrdaneri at 11:39 AM on August 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
I did find one person's apologia for one particular relationship. Expanding insights from that to encompass all of masculinity strikes this reader as deeply unwise.
posted by mrdaneri at 11:39 AM on August 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
...the American ideal of independence is more socially harmful than useful, is environmentally and economically less efficient as a way to organize a society, and there just really aren't any benefits to it.
I am not going to go out to Walden Pond any time soon, but off the top of my head I can think of least these benefits (related) to striving to be someone who can be independent*:
Not needing to change who you are in order to conform to societal norms
Less chance of staying in a harmful situation because you're afraid of being alone
Being more resilient to change (either, say, moving to a new town, or, say, large cultural shifts that challenge the norms)
Being more open to people and ideas that don't fit into society
*"independence" in the sense of emotional maturity -- not like libertarian bootstrap nonsense, but more knowing how to to take care of your personal emotional health to the extent that you're able.
posted by sparklemotion at 11:53 AM on August 2, 2016 [7 favorites]
I am not going to go out to Walden Pond any time soon, but off the top of my head I can think of least these benefits (related) to striving to be someone who can be independent*:
Not needing to change who you are in order to conform to societal norms
Less chance of staying in a harmful situation because you're afraid of being alone
Being more resilient to change (either, say, moving to a new town, or, say, large cultural shifts that challenge the norms)
Being more open to people and ideas that don't fit into society
*"independence" in the sense of emotional maturity -- not like libertarian bootstrap nonsense, but more knowing how to to take care of your personal emotional health to the extent that you're able.
posted by sparklemotion at 11:53 AM on August 2, 2016 [7 favorites]
And a note for those of you who see a lot of themselves (especially in part 2 with respect to owning and recognizing the source of negative emotions within yourself, not being blind to the way that your loved ones show you constantly that you are worthy of their love, etc): These are the kinds of things that I understand to be the goals of techniques such as cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT).
The Feeling Good Handbook in particular has a number of exercises to help you recognize and work through cognitive distortions, which can be applied to more situations than just "my wife is yelling at me again."
posted by sparklemotion at 12:02 PM on August 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
The Feeling Good Handbook in particular has a number of exercises to help you recognize and work through cognitive distortions, which can be applied to more situations than just "my wife is yelling at me again."
posted by sparklemotion at 12:02 PM on August 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
I thought this was all pretty standard stuff that none the less many people need to hear. If you want to be trusted you need to be trustworthy. If you want space, you have to spend some time together, even if it's inconvenient sometimes. If you want every girl you date to not be so needy and crazy, don't act like she's crazy for wanting to be near you. If you don't think this needs to be said to and understood by an awful lot of shit-heads then you don't spend a lot of time in AskMe so congrats.
posted by bleep at 12:03 PM on August 2, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by bleep at 12:03 PM on August 2, 2016 [6 favorites]
I'm going to nope out. For starters, little grinds on my dysphoria quite like broadly general psychoanalysis of men* (including trans and masculine nonbinary!). The second is I've had abusers take advantage of my "availability" to engage in emotional and sexual abuse. Not all of my distancing is healthy, but those quills are there for a reason.
If you have a strong inner shame landscape, it doesn’t really matter if someone you care about just cries and says she loves you and asks for you to come close, or if she yells and accuses you.
Oh, fucking hell. Sometimes that yelling and shouting is, in fact, abuse. Sometimes it's grounded in misogyny, homophobia, and biphobia. Sometimes, and I've not experienced this, it's grounded in classism and racism as well. Two of the worst examples of personal bigotry I've experienced came from straight women doing both at the same time (my grandmother and a lover to be specific.) Both took advantage of my obligations to be available to them in doing so. Let's talk about Orlando for a second. My reaction to hearing about members of my community massacred an hour away was no reaction at all because I needed to be "available" to straight family on that Sunday.
Those barriers are not all in my head, and demanding unconditional availability strikes me as pretty tone deaf. To paraphrase the very insightful Steven Universe this week, "you can't fix everyone."
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 12:20 PM on August 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
If you have a strong inner shame landscape, it doesn’t really matter if someone you care about just cries and says she loves you and asks for you to come close, or if she yells and accuses you.
Oh, fucking hell. Sometimes that yelling and shouting is, in fact, abuse. Sometimes it's grounded in misogyny, homophobia, and biphobia. Sometimes, and I've not experienced this, it's grounded in classism and racism as well. Two of the worst examples of personal bigotry I've experienced came from straight women doing both at the same time (my grandmother and a lover to be specific.) Both took advantage of my obligations to be available to them in doing so. Let's talk about Orlando for a second. My reaction to hearing about members of my community massacred an hour away was no reaction at all because I needed to be "available" to straight family on that Sunday.
Those barriers are not all in my head, and demanding unconditional availability strikes me as pretty tone deaf. To paraphrase the very insightful Steven Universe this week, "you can't fix everyone."
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 12:20 PM on August 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
Although I think there are many mostly-isolated analyses of value in here, I guess I agree with some other folks above that the writer's broader framing is sometimes excessively tendentious and overly-broad, and sometimes a little bit bonkers. Here's an example, from the second article:
If you have realized you’ve harmed her, and apologized, and a wave of hurt comes your way, she is not attacking you, she is absorbing your apology and finally feeling heard.
Frankly, this is gaslighting, itself. The author talks about adult women as though they're inherently, extremely vulnerable and fragile, and that all men need to do is meet their needs completely. I mean, I see the appeal of such a simple solution, but it strikes me as very infantilizing toward women and not necessarily a healthy way for men to build equitable relationships.
The middle of the cycle can look like anger or hurt that finally is able to be voiced, as she absorbs that you are now with her again. You must not listen to your feelings of despair and hopelessness at this moment, as they will lead you to give up before the cycle has completed, which will “prove” to you that there was no hope.
She is inexplicably sanguine about the proposition that women aren't the ones who do hurtful or problematic things in relationships. There is, again, an uncomfortable feeling of gaslighting going on here too. I feel a lot of frustration with a woman telling men not to listen to their hurt feelings when a female partner is making them upset and passing it off as feminist.
posted by clockzero at 12:32 PM on August 2, 2016 [10 favorites]
If you have realized you’ve harmed her, and apologized, and a wave of hurt comes your way, she is not attacking you, she is absorbing your apology and finally feeling heard.
Frankly, this is gaslighting, itself. The author talks about adult women as though they're inherently, extremely vulnerable and fragile, and that all men need to do is meet their needs completely. I mean, I see the appeal of such a simple solution, but it strikes me as very infantilizing toward women and not necessarily a healthy way for men to build equitable relationships.
The middle of the cycle can look like anger or hurt that finally is able to be voiced, as she absorbs that you are now with her again. You must not listen to your feelings of despair and hopelessness at this moment, as they will lead you to give up before the cycle has completed, which will “prove” to you that there was no hope.
She is inexplicably sanguine about the proposition that women aren't the ones who do hurtful or problematic things in relationships. There is, again, an uncomfortable feeling of gaslighting going on here too. I feel a lot of frustration with a woman telling men not to listen to their hurt feelings when a female partner is making them upset and passing it off as feminist.
posted by clockzero at 12:32 PM on August 2, 2016 [10 favorites]
This is an extremely powerful message being distorted by the style and tone of writing. Here is what I took away from it, paraphrasing it in the author's voice:
Because my partner has consistently and reliably provided evidence, over time, of being present and available and able to meet my emotional needs, this has built up the trust between us that allows him to take the space he needs, and for me to give it to him *because* I feel safe and secure that he's always "with" me.
Or, to put it in a different way, from my own life experience:
I once asked my father for a laptop. These were the days when they cost $3000. He said to me then, Look, I will never say No to anything you ask of me, but I hope that I have taught you well enough to pause and think before you ask anything of me, knowing that I will not say no.
He brought me that laptop. It cost him a month's salary.
But it is a lesson I have never forgotten and deeply deeply appreciated from such a silent undemonstrative man. I have no doubts that my father loves me and will always be there for me, though I've just spent a month at my parent's place and barely spoken more than a few sentences with him.
the author's writing style isn't elegant enough for the insight they are attempting to share, but its an extremely powerful one.
posted by infini at 12:38 PM on August 2, 2016 [20 favorites]
Because my partner has consistently and reliably provided evidence, over time, of being present and available and able to meet my emotional needs, this has built up the trust between us that allows him to take the space he needs, and for me to give it to him *because* I feel safe and secure that he's always "with" me.
Or, to put it in a different way, from my own life experience:
I once asked my father for a laptop. These were the days when they cost $3000. He said to me then, Look, I will never say No to anything you ask of me, but I hope that I have taught you well enough to pause and think before you ask anything of me, knowing that I will not say no.
He brought me that laptop. It cost him a month's salary.
But it is a lesson I have never forgotten and deeply deeply appreciated from such a silent undemonstrative man. I have no doubts that my father loves me and will always be there for me, though I've just spent a month at my parent's place and barely spoken more than a few sentences with him.
the author's writing style isn't elegant enough for the insight they are attempting to share, but its an extremely powerful one.
posted by infini at 12:38 PM on August 2, 2016 [20 favorites]
This is an extremely powerful message being distorted by the style and tone of writing...the author's writing style isn't elegant enough for the insight they are attempting to share, but its an extremely powerful one.
I think you make a strong point, infini, and I think it is very good of you to be generous in seeing past that style and tone, but after some consideration I feel like she's inadvertently mixed some rather bad and potentially harmful advice for men in with some real insight.
posted by clockzero at 12:41 PM on August 2, 2016 [4 favorites]
I think you make a strong point, infini, and I think it is very good of you to be generous in seeing past that style and tone, but after some consideration I feel like she's inadvertently mixed some rather bad and potentially harmful advice for men in with some real insight.
posted by clockzero at 12:41 PM on August 2, 2016 [4 favorites]
Relatively minor point, but the "tripartite brain" is not a thing; it is a long-disproven hypothesis in neuroscience that for some reason keeps hanging on in psychology and neurology. That is just to say, our knowledge of the brain does not particularly support (or reject) her ideas about attachment and "autonomy" (which I would probably call independence).
posted by biogeo at 12:44 PM on August 2, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by biogeo at 12:44 PM on August 2, 2016 [5 favorites]
this was a great read but extremely frustrating for me.
I have no doubt that the costs of patriarchy are large numbers of women like this who have never known safety in relationships. But they also cost of large numbers of men who have never seen safety at home and in his key relationships like the male partner in this article modeled.
having said that as the wife and mother of Male Aspies, what this article holds up as a benchmark will never be in my partner and son's essential male toolkit but I completely get that benchmarking normal healthy relationships is something we do not see often enough. Images of masculinity are not as nuanced or as convincing unfortunately. This is an interstage en route to what good looks like and no less valuable for that, in fact, the opposite.
the style and tone issue people mention is definitely one which will cause a number of folks to switch off but essentially she is telling a story from lived experience and trying to show why that can be a valuable primer for respect & trust = autonomy & security in relationships. But too many accounts of lived experience get tagged as special snowflake, especially I think when coming from a damaged female perspective, she basically can't win.
posted by Wilder at 12:54 PM on August 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
I have no doubt that the costs of patriarchy are large numbers of women like this who have never known safety in relationships. But they also cost of large numbers of men who have never seen safety at home and in his key relationships like the male partner in this article modeled.
having said that as the wife and mother of Male Aspies, what this article holds up as a benchmark will never be in my partner and son's essential male toolkit but I completely get that benchmarking normal healthy relationships is something we do not see often enough. Images of masculinity are not as nuanced or as convincing unfortunately. This is an interstage en route to what good looks like and no less valuable for that, in fact, the opposite.
the style and tone issue people mention is definitely one which will cause a number of folks to switch off but essentially she is telling a story from lived experience and trying to show why that can be a valuable primer for respect & trust = autonomy & security in relationships. But too many accounts of lived experience get tagged as special snowflake, especially I think when coming from a damaged female perspective, she basically can't win.
posted by Wilder at 12:54 PM on August 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
And, as with many lived experience stories, we are each taking away bits and bobs that speak to us.
posted by infini at 1:09 PM on August 2, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by infini at 1:09 PM on August 2, 2016 [6 favorites]
My father essentially did what the OP suggests for my mother, although I did not realize exactly how this was working with them until after she died and the relatives started talking.
It did result in an extremely stable relationship, and although we got him past the shock of losing her he basically lives every day of his life now in honor of her, because we managed to convince him that she wouldn't want him to give up. But after 50 years he basically did not have any desires or self-direction of his own. It has been gratifying to watch him awaken a bit and take up hobbies he gave up decades ago because they didn't interest her. But he still can't understand why I separated and didn't talk to them for 17 years. I've approached the subject very tentatively a couple of times but I realize there is no way to explain to him that she was gaslighting me and had decided I would never leave home without shattering the world-view that is keeping him relatively sane and healthy today.
So tl;dr the approach suggested in the OP "works." But it is also toxic and will cause a lot of unintended consequences.
posted by Bringer Tom at 1:31 PM on August 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
It did result in an extremely stable relationship, and although we got him past the shock of losing her he basically lives every day of his life now in honor of her, because we managed to convince him that she wouldn't want him to give up. But after 50 years he basically did not have any desires or self-direction of his own. It has been gratifying to watch him awaken a bit and take up hobbies he gave up decades ago because they didn't interest her. But he still can't understand why I separated and didn't talk to them for 17 years. I've approached the subject very tentatively a couple of times but I realize there is no way to explain to him that she was gaslighting me and had decided I would never leave home without shattering the world-view that is keeping him relatively sane and healthy today.
So tl;dr the approach suggested in the OP "works." But it is also toxic and will cause a lot of unintended consequences.
posted by Bringer Tom at 1:31 PM on August 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
I haven't read the second article yet, but this here gets at something I've encountered confusingly more often than not in relationships with dudes:
He doesn’t only treat women this way temporarily when he is excited about them or lusting after them or in love with them. They don’t need to do or be anything in particular to be treated this way. It is a quality in him, that he learned is normal from his parents growing up, so he doesn’t withdraw accessibility when he gets bored or when you fight or after he’s used up your worth to him as a conquest. That is not safety, and only a culture folded backwards on itself could possibly normalize using women in such a disposable way.
posted by mandymanwasregistered at 3:03 PM on August 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
He doesn’t only treat women this way temporarily when he is excited about them or lusting after them or in love with them. They don’t need to do or be anything in particular to be treated this way. It is a quality in him, that he learned is normal from his parents growing up, so he doesn’t withdraw accessibility when he gets bored or when you fight or after he’s used up your worth to him as a conquest. That is not safety, and only a culture folded backwards on itself could possibly normalize using women in such a disposable way.
posted by mandymanwasregistered at 3:03 PM on August 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
Part of why I keep bouncing off this article is that autonomy for me is pretty strongly about sexual autonomy: the right to say "no" without being coerced, threatened, or manipulated. That includes other forms of physical affection as well. I don't see that as a quid pro quo negotiation. I say that from the perspective of having consented to comfort sex for my partner's benefit, and that wasn't healthy for either of us.
Stepping back a bit, it seems a bit muddled in that personal space is equated to deprivation of physical affection. And maybe that is the case, maybe it's not. "I'm going off for a week because I can't stand to be with you," sounds a lot more like a comic strip plot than a real-life relationship.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 5:04 PM on August 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
Stepping back a bit, it seems a bit muddled in that personal space is equated to deprivation of physical affection. And maybe that is the case, maybe it's not. "I'm going off for a week because I can't stand to be with you," sounds a lot more like a comic strip plot than a real-life relationship.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 5:04 PM on August 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
So I see what she's getting at and agree with a lot of it, though the article was a little too woo for me. I think infini put the basic concept much more nicely.
I understand where she's coming from because I, a woman, have had experiences with men that damaged my trust with men in general a great deal. I do feel I've gotten past a lot of it, but I can understand in a visceral way the anxiety and fear that comes from men who are not consistent, available or responsive; as well as the deep shame that comes with that anxiety, due to feelings that I should be more confident, independent, more "cool girl." I know these are real and valid things, for me and many other people. Though I have gotten better and continue to get better, I make progress in fits and starts, it's still hard sometimes and it will always be something I need to work on.
At the same time, I am really seeing first hand (maybe for the first time) how this kind of language and mindset can so easily be twisted into something abusive and dark and the "feminism" of it used as a cudgel (as clockzero mentions). And I say this as bona fide, 100% self-identified feminist. It doesn't take much to make this kind of thing into something quite ugly and the damage I've seen it do is, at times, breathtaking to me.
There has got to be a way to respect the needs and boundaries of both people in a relationship equally and to be able to find a good and fair way to ascertain when the needs of one person should take a higher priority for whatever reason. Along the lines of what sparklemotion said, this has to be determined, I think, on a case-by-case basis within each relationship - there is no one size fits all. This isn't always an easy task, and sometimes I think the kind of language the author uses can be used (whether intentional or not) to obscure some pretty malicious stuff.
posted by triggerfinger at 6:19 PM on August 2, 2016 [8 favorites]
I understand where she's coming from because I, a woman, have had experiences with men that damaged my trust with men in general a great deal. I do feel I've gotten past a lot of it, but I can understand in a visceral way the anxiety and fear that comes from men who are not consistent, available or responsive; as well as the deep shame that comes with that anxiety, due to feelings that I should be more confident, independent, more "cool girl." I know these are real and valid things, for me and many other people. Though I have gotten better and continue to get better, I make progress in fits and starts, it's still hard sometimes and it will always be something I need to work on.
At the same time, I am really seeing first hand (maybe for the first time) how this kind of language and mindset can so easily be twisted into something abusive and dark and the "feminism" of it used as a cudgel (as clockzero mentions). And I say this as bona fide, 100% self-identified feminist. It doesn't take much to make this kind of thing into something quite ugly and the damage I've seen it do is, at times, breathtaking to me.
There has got to be a way to respect the needs and boundaries of both people in a relationship equally and to be able to find a good and fair way to ascertain when the needs of one person should take a higher priority for whatever reason. Along the lines of what sparklemotion said, this has to be determined, I think, on a case-by-case basis within each relationship - there is no one size fits all. This isn't always an easy task, and sometimes I think the kind of language the author uses can be used (whether intentional or not) to obscure some pretty malicious stuff.
posted by triggerfinger at 6:19 PM on August 2, 2016 [8 favorites]
I think the struggle is that the definition of "autonomy" being used is nearly contradictory to how we usually understand it. The author is using the word "autonomy" to say, "The more secure your relationship, the less you will need to rely on others to feel secure, and the less they will need to rely on you for the same."
I agree that the second article does a better job of explaining how to get to that point. It details how the need for emotional security and closeness is normal, and yet that a lot of people were denied that need themselves as babies and toddlers, and therefore their brains grew in the "emotional security and closeness = bad" pattern. And so, to get to the point of "autonomy" (as used in the first article), a person who developed the "closeness = bad" pattern must re-learn healthy emotional expression, ideally from someone who has that healthy ability themselves and can model that behavior.
The second article also specifies how these patterns are established at an extremely early age, and that nobody has a choice in which one they got as children, and therefore shouldn't feel ashamed about having attachment issues. But also, as adults, we have a responsibility to recognize and repair our understanding of emotional security and closeness as a normal human need. That's tough in our society, which actually idealizes detachment and denigrates emotional closeness as weakness.
posted by Autumnheart at 6:26 PM on August 2, 2016 [4 favorites]
I agree that the second article does a better job of explaining how to get to that point. It details how the need for emotional security and closeness is normal, and yet that a lot of people were denied that need themselves as babies and toddlers, and therefore their brains grew in the "emotional security and closeness = bad" pattern. And so, to get to the point of "autonomy" (as used in the first article), a person who developed the "closeness = bad" pattern must re-learn healthy emotional expression, ideally from someone who has that healthy ability themselves and can model that behavior.
The second article also specifies how these patterns are established at an extremely early age, and that nobody has a choice in which one they got as children, and therefore shouldn't feel ashamed about having attachment issues. But also, as adults, we have a responsibility to recognize and repair our understanding of emotional security and closeness as a normal human need. That's tough in our society, which actually idealizes detachment and denigrates emotional closeness as weakness.
posted by Autumnheart at 6:26 PM on August 2, 2016 [4 favorites]
Why is this a man's issue? It feels more like basically attachment and friendship nurturing and boundaries in any relationship, the fairly standard stuff that's supposed to happen. Is this not something that a woman is meant to provide, or is it assumed that a woman will already provide it?
posted by dorothyisunderwood at 6:28 PM on August 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by dorothyisunderwood at 6:28 PM on August 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't think the author thinks it *is* exclusively a man's issue, but the author is specifically focusing on men in her article because the site is "Dating Tips for Feminist Men".
I've seen a lot of reminders around the Web recently about how, just because the topic is about how women are dealing with a particular issue (like assault or discrimination), doesn't mean men don't deal with it, or that men don't have issues too. And I think the same applies here--just because the article talks about this in the context of men, doesn't mean women can't start their own conversation about it. It's just not THIS conversation.
posted by Autumnheart at 6:35 PM on August 2, 2016 [5 favorites]
I've seen a lot of reminders around the Web recently about how, just because the topic is about how women are dealing with a particular issue (like assault or discrimination), doesn't mean men don't deal with it, or that men don't have issues too. And I think the same applies here--just because the article talks about this in the context of men, doesn't mean women can't start their own conversation about it. It's just not THIS conversation.
posted by Autumnheart at 6:35 PM on August 2, 2016 [5 favorites]
What happens when Jordan cannot respond?
posted by engelgrafik at 9:02 PM on August 2, 2016
posted by engelgrafik at 9:02 PM on August 2, 2016
They've built up enough of a history of mutual trust and respect that if Jordan can't respond for some time due to other commitments, she knows he's not blowing her off, it's genuinely urgent work/personal priorities, and he will come and respond as soon as possible. And likewise, Jordan knows she's not going to interrupt his week at camp over minor issues, only something truly urgent because they've got that history of trust.
posted by dorothyisunderwood at 9:18 PM on August 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by dorothyisunderwood at 9:18 PM on August 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
I read this as "I have borderline personality disorder but this Jordan dude went way above and beyond in helping me out, therefore this is the model for everyone's relationships."
There are some really good bits of truth in there but they're sprinkled few and far between, in a sea of raw, screaming emotional need and total inability to be one's own guide and compass.
I freely admit I may be misreading this. But this is what I walked away with and now I want a shower and a beer.
posted by PsychoTherapist at 10:22 AM on August 3, 2016 [4 favorites]
There are some really good bits of truth in there but they're sprinkled few and far between, in a sea of raw, screaming emotional need and total inability to be one's own guide and compass.
I freely admit I may be misreading this. But this is what I walked away with and now I want a shower and a beer.
posted by PsychoTherapist at 10:22 AM on August 3, 2016 [4 favorites]
I read this as "I have borderline personality disorder but this Jordan dude went way above and beyond in helping me out, therefore this is the model for everyone's relationships."
Come on. We can't diagnose someone via the internet. Personally, I suspect 'difficult' women get that diagnosis too often.
There are some really good bits of truth in there but they're sprinkled few and far between, in a sea of raw, screaming emotional need and total inability to be one's own guide and compass.
I think you're being too harsh, and inadvertently maybe exemplifying some of the things she's talking about. You make it sound like her emotional needs are scary, almost monstrous, and (no offense) I think that's kind of crummy and representative of some of the bad patterns she's trying to ameliorate.
Not infrequently, men don't know how to meet women's emotional needs in intimate relationships; but in addition, men are often put off of even really trying to attend to women's emotional needs, which is somewhat more complex. I think this is partially because there's a stigma against being emotionally available and nurturing for men -- it's regarded as un-masculine. Also, ceding emotional control of a situation or interaction, so to speak, really rubs a lot of men the wrong way -- which can make a woman feel even more anxious and alone. Men are socialized to take emotional priority without thinking, which is why women asking for emotional priority can seem backward, confusing, or unfair, if one buys deeply into traditionalistic masculinity.
Look, nobody is perfect, and I have a lot of issues with some of the things she's saying here, but she is absolutely getting at something very real and important, too, about connection, intimacy, and power in male-female romantic relationships.
I freely admit I may be misreading this. But this is what I walked away with and now I want a shower and a beer.
Emphasis mine. Think about how that sounds, as a response to a woman analyzing and critiquing problems with men not helping their partners to feel safe and connected.
posted by clockzero at 10:58 AM on August 3, 2016 [5 favorites]
Come on. We can't diagnose someone via the internet. Personally, I suspect 'difficult' women get that diagnosis too often.
There are some really good bits of truth in there but they're sprinkled few and far between, in a sea of raw, screaming emotional need and total inability to be one's own guide and compass.
I think you're being too harsh, and inadvertently maybe exemplifying some of the things she's talking about. You make it sound like her emotional needs are scary, almost monstrous, and (no offense) I think that's kind of crummy and representative of some of the bad patterns she's trying to ameliorate.
Not infrequently, men don't know how to meet women's emotional needs in intimate relationships; but in addition, men are often put off of even really trying to attend to women's emotional needs, which is somewhat more complex. I think this is partially because there's a stigma against being emotionally available and nurturing for men -- it's regarded as un-masculine. Also, ceding emotional control of a situation or interaction, so to speak, really rubs a lot of men the wrong way -- which can make a woman feel even more anxious and alone. Men are socialized to take emotional priority without thinking, which is why women asking for emotional priority can seem backward, confusing, or unfair, if one buys deeply into traditionalistic masculinity.
Look, nobody is perfect, and I have a lot of issues with some of the things she's saying here, but she is absolutely getting at something very real and important, too, about connection, intimacy, and power in male-female romantic relationships.
I freely admit I may be misreading this. But this is what I walked away with and now I want a shower and a beer.
Emphasis mine. Think about how that sounds, as a response to a woman analyzing and critiquing problems with men not helping their partners to feel safe and connected.
posted by clockzero at 10:58 AM on August 3, 2016 [5 favorites]
Think about how that sounds, as a response to a woman analyzing and critiquing problems with men not helping their partners to feel safe and connected.
There are plenty of people in this thread who have talked about how the demands that the author makes in her relationships are similar to those made by people in their lives who made them feel unsafe. It's not surprising to me that folks would feel visceral grossness from that.
I mean, trying to find her specific page in the DSM isn't necessarily fair, but the fact that the author is a woman doesn't get her off the hook for portraying her kind of fucked up relationship dynamics as "normal" or even "ideal".
posted by sparklemotion at 11:46 AM on August 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
There are plenty of people in this thread who have talked about how the demands that the author makes in her relationships are similar to those made by people in their lives who made them feel unsafe. It's not surprising to me that folks would feel visceral grossness from that.
I mean, trying to find her specific page in the DSM isn't necessarily fair, but the fact that the author is a woman doesn't get her off the hook for portraying her kind of fucked up relationship dynamics as "normal" or even "ideal".
posted by sparklemotion at 11:46 AM on August 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
There are plenty of people in this thread who have talked about how the demands that the author makes in her relationships are similar to those made by people in their lives who made them feel unsafe. It's not surprising to me that folks would feel visceral grossness from that.
I mean, trying to find her specific page in the DSM isn't necessarily fair, but the fact that the author is a woman doesn't get her off the hook for portraying her kind of fucked up relationship dynamics as "normal" or even "ideal".
I understand and appreciate what you're saying. I didn't mean to take an unyielding stand on that point, I was just noting that PsychoTherapist's comment about taking a shower and having a beer seems to resonate with traditionalistic masculinity's orientation to women's bids for attention and/or connection. That's all. It's not a personal attack on PsychoTherapist or even a defense of the author's claims or framing.
posted by clockzero at 12:04 PM on August 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
I mean, trying to find her specific page in the DSM isn't necessarily fair, but the fact that the author is a woman doesn't get her off the hook for portraying her kind of fucked up relationship dynamics as "normal" or even "ideal".
I understand and appreciate what you're saying. I didn't mean to take an unyielding stand on that point, I was just noting that PsychoTherapist's comment about taking a shower and having a beer seems to resonate with traditionalistic masculinity's orientation to women's bids for attention and/or connection. That's all. It's not a personal attack on PsychoTherapist or even a defense of the author's claims or framing.
posted by clockzero at 12:04 PM on August 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
I read this as "I have borderline personality disorder but this Jordan dude went way above and beyond in helping me out, therefore this is the model for everyone's relationships."
That's what I got from it, too; this article is a really uncomfortable read. It's great for the author that they found someone able to accommodate their specific and really rather extreme needs, and who is apparently able to do so in a sustainable way, but generalizing that experience across all male/female relationships as though this is some kind of norm is just bizarre; the gender-essentialism here verges on the offensive.
I suppose it's good that there are people reading this article who haven't had the kind of experience which makes these alarm bells ring so loudly and persistently, and that they can pick up some kind of generalized value out of of the author's extreme perspective. That must be a more pleasant life experience. For my own part, having spent several years married to someone with borderline personality disorder, I don't think I can actually hear anything the author is trying to say; the dysfunction signal is so strong it drowns all the details out.
posted by crotchety old git at 2:24 PM on August 3, 2016 [4 favorites]
That's what I got from it, too; this article is a really uncomfortable read. It's great for the author that they found someone able to accommodate their specific and really rather extreme needs, and who is apparently able to do so in a sustainable way, but generalizing that experience across all male/female relationships as though this is some kind of norm is just bizarre; the gender-essentialism here verges on the offensive.
I suppose it's good that there are people reading this article who haven't had the kind of experience which makes these alarm bells ring so loudly and persistently, and that they can pick up some kind of generalized value out of of the author's extreme perspective. That must be a more pleasant life experience. For my own part, having spent several years married to someone with borderline personality disorder, I don't think I can actually hear anything the author is trying to say; the dysfunction signal is so strong it drowns all the details out.
posted by crotchety old git at 2:24 PM on August 3, 2016 [4 favorites]
I'm also glad that people are getting something useful out of these articles, and I can get some crumbs out of the second one, but the overall portrait reminds me of things that were a long way from healthy.
posted by The Gaffer at 2:48 PM on August 3, 2016
posted by The Gaffer at 2:48 PM on August 3, 2016
Holy shit, I think this author is doing her argument a giant disservice by using this specific relationship as her case study.
I agree that a basic part of a secure relationship is being there, being responsive, when your partner needs you. And I agree that being undependable in this regard is destructive, even if you do it adequately sometimes.
However, it sounds like the author has significantly greater-than-average, or maybe just stronger-than-average, emotional needs. If someone I was dating made plans that would make him incommunicado for a week, it might be difficult because I would miss him, but it wouldn't even occur to me to try to make plans for what we would do if I found myself desperately needing emotional comfort from him, because that doesn't actually happen to me all that often.
The point being, the maintenance of secure attachment is always essential, but it isn't always this emotionally labor-intensive. Her needs are as she describes, and her then-partner was willing to meet them, so it worked out well for them. However, being on either side of a relationship like that would scare the shit out of me, plus a lot of other people, as indicated in this thread. But I don't think that means we can't form secure attachments. I think it's telling that the author compares ADULT humans to BABY animals (ducklings), because an intense need for very frequent reinforcement of attachment is usually associated with FORMING the ability for attachment, in infancy. If something disrupted that in childhood and you need to address attachment more intensely as an adult (as I think the author implies here), more power to you, but that isn't universal. It seems as if the author genuinely doesn't realize that not all women's needs are like hers.
posted by ostro at 3:36 PM on August 3, 2016 [8 favorites]
I agree that a basic part of a secure relationship is being there, being responsive, when your partner needs you. And I agree that being undependable in this regard is destructive, even if you do it adequately sometimes.
However, it sounds like the author has significantly greater-than-average, or maybe just stronger-than-average, emotional needs. If someone I was dating made plans that would make him incommunicado for a week, it might be difficult because I would miss him, but it wouldn't even occur to me to try to make plans for what we would do if I found myself desperately needing emotional comfort from him, because that doesn't actually happen to me all that often.
The point being, the maintenance of secure attachment is always essential, but it isn't always this emotionally labor-intensive. Her needs are as she describes, and her then-partner was willing to meet them, so it worked out well for them. However, being on either side of a relationship like that would scare the shit out of me, plus a lot of other people, as indicated in this thread. But I don't think that means we can't form secure attachments. I think it's telling that the author compares ADULT humans to BABY animals (ducklings), because an intense need for very frequent reinforcement of attachment is usually associated with FORMING the ability for attachment, in infancy. If something disrupted that in childhood and you need to address attachment more intensely as an adult (as I think the author implies here), more power to you, but that isn't universal. It seems as if the author genuinely doesn't realize that not all women's needs are like hers.
posted by ostro at 3:36 PM on August 3, 2016 [8 favorites]
ostro, that helps me understand what was the problem whilst reading - a lack of perspective
posted by infini at 3:41 PM on August 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by infini at 3:41 PM on August 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
What bothers me about a lot of feminist writing about masculinity are the hidden assumptions: assumed heterosexuality, assumed cis and gender-conforming, assumed emotional health or lack of significant trauma, a whole mess of ethnocentric assumptions. And a huge gap in making a nod to socialization without even touching cultural homophobia and transphobia, or that the stakes of that socialization are dead or not, raped or not, battered or not, harassed out of school systems or not.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 4:00 PM on August 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 4:00 PM on August 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
There's value here. The author also needs to listen to her own advice to do some inner work to heal what was missing from her infancy, and gain the ability to participate equally in self-soothing. Has the author written a series of articles setting forth a justification to not do this inner work?
I agree that we can and should expect emotional availability greater than zero, and our ability to self-sooth cannot reach infinity. That expectation in our culture is damaging.
Similarly, we all need self-soothing skills greater than zero, and emotional availability cannot reach infinity. But she declared zero self-soothing and infinite emotional availability to be normative. We see that pattern in infants of most species. The relationship model she describes as ideal is a description of co-dependency.
Whether intentionally or not, she has drawn up a blueprint for exploitation, by erasing the numbers between "zero" and "infinity". We all have needs-- but they are somewhere in between.
posted by matt_arnold at 10:44 AM on August 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
I agree that we can and should expect emotional availability greater than zero, and our ability to self-sooth cannot reach infinity. That expectation in our culture is damaging.
Similarly, we all need self-soothing skills greater than zero, and emotional availability cannot reach infinity. But she declared zero self-soothing and infinite emotional availability to be normative. We see that pattern in infants of most species. The relationship model she describes as ideal is a description of co-dependency.
Whether intentionally or not, she has drawn up a blueprint for exploitation, by erasing the numbers between "zero" and "infinity". We all have needs-- but they are somewhere in between.
posted by matt_arnold at 10:44 AM on August 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
it is fascinating to watch how the responses play out. If it's true what this author says, that about half the population would think secure attachment responses are completely normal and not think twice about giving them, while the other half (those raised with less than optimal responsiveness from caregivers) would react as if being reliable is scary and hard to imagine, we're getting a sociological study right here of human attachment patterns.
The piece clearly describes how adults can give each other space and respect boundaries. The readers who have secure attachment will be able to fill in the blanks of how boundaries and autonomy work here because they live this in their own lives. They'll mostly come away from the piece nodding at the stories here about how they could be happily out of contact for a week or a month without any hurt or harm. The readers who have insecure attachment will hear some kind of threat, instead of internalizing the reality of calm, loving connection.
posted by Twitterdude at 11:02 AM on August 4, 2016
The piece clearly describes how adults can give each other space and respect boundaries. The readers who have secure attachment will be able to fill in the blanks of how boundaries and autonomy work here because they live this in their own lives. They'll mostly come away from the piece nodding at the stories here about how they could be happily out of contact for a week or a month without any hurt or harm. The readers who have insecure attachment will hear some kind of threat, instead of internalizing the reality of calm, loving connection.
posted by Twitterdude at 11:02 AM on August 4, 2016
ie Dorothyisunderwood, bleep, and autumnheart are getting it. the others are seeing something about their own fear. The piece doesn't say 'you literally have to respond to every emotional need the second it presents itself.' That is true of parents of young children, who can't wait for very long to have emotional safety maintained. But sitting quietly next to your partner feeling connected while you both work or do other things is nearly effortless, unless you have serious attachment issues that you need to address. Taking a nap together is something most people like to do and doesn't take a whole lot of work. Letting your intimates know when you'll be available if you aren't available now is a healthy, perfectly easy, calm approach to boundaries and space. If you have very hard edges and get rigid at the crucial moments when someone you love really needs you, you'll find they don't get all that safe around you and you may not really get why. That's humans. The rest is fear.
posted by Twitterdude at 11:17 AM on August 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Twitterdude at 11:17 AM on August 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
Twitterdude, I'm willing to walk through this step-by-step if you'd like. On a regular basis, I sit quietly next to my partner while we both work and do other things. If my partner wants my availability, but I'm not available now, I happily tell them when I will be available. My partner doesn't like napping, and neither do I, but I would do it if asked.
Are those acts missing an indefinable emotional quality, of "subtle turning towards"? We see it illustrated with photographs from Sense8 because it's not easy to capture in words. You'll have to take my word (and that of my partner) that I exhibit that quality.
I have been in relationships where that was not enough. My borderline-personality partner at that time was not capable of perceiving that indescribable quality. Her brain only saw the people who put out cigarettes on her skin when she was a child. "Subtle turning towards" could not land. It was never going to land. By continuing forever, I would serve only to destroy myself. The world spiraled into a weekly crisis of her suicide threats.
I'll grant you, my scenario is the opposite of what we typically see in our culture. But in this case, the expanding fireball which the author describes was not generated by my failings.
The author describes exploiting Jordan for a level of infant needs which is not the level of needs you described.
Now, you have made the claim that I need to address that. Please weigh the possibility that your comforting history and happy perspective blinds you to the very real threat you have made. It is literally a proposal that turn off what saved me, and submit to exploitation. It is not just something my brain perceives as a threat. All the observations support it.
All you need to do is count higher than zero. You can do it if you try.
posted by matt_arnold at 11:43 AM on August 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
Are those acts missing an indefinable emotional quality, of "subtle turning towards"? We see it illustrated with photographs from Sense8 because it's not easy to capture in words. You'll have to take my word (and that of my partner) that I exhibit that quality.
I have been in relationships where that was not enough. My borderline-personality partner at that time was not capable of perceiving that indescribable quality. Her brain only saw the people who put out cigarettes on her skin when she was a child. "Subtle turning towards" could not land. It was never going to land. By continuing forever, I would serve only to destroy myself. The world spiraled into a weekly crisis of her suicide threats.
I'll grant you, my scenario is the opposite of what we typically see in our culture. But in this case, the expanding fireball which the author describes was not generated by my failings.
The author describes exploiting Jordan for a level of infant needs which is not the level of needs you described.
Now, you have made the claim that I need to address that. Please weigh the possibility that your comforting history and happy perspective blinds you to the very real threat you have made. It is literally a proposal that turn off what saved me, and submit to exploitation. It is not just something my brain perceives as a threat. All the observations support it.
All you need to do is count higher than zero. You can do it if you try.
posted by matt_arnold at 11:43 AM on August 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
Hey matt_arnold, if I hear you right, you're saying that secure attachment is not a cure-all for all the violence of this world. I agree - we're not therapists for our partners. We're in this with them, and we need extra help if there is real harm in their past. In your case, it sounds like what your partner needed was what you were offering, plus both of you needed significant outside resources to help you and them heal the effects of what sounds like very real harm/trauma/violence that had been done to their body before you came on the scene.
That support is not the stigmatizing kind of acting like the problem is inside them, when it is actually in the violence done to them (cigarettes on the arm sounds like a serious abuse scenario). The problem isn't in the partner, but neither is it in you - it is an extended network of care, consisting of family, friend, ally, and professional care, and a culture that is non-stigmatizing and non-isolating where you can talk about trauma the way you can talk about having a cold. This culture we live in is atomized and expects individual partners to heal harm that is beyond any one person's capacity - the thing is that this culture always has to have it be somebody's fault, so if it isn't your fault it must be theirs, when actually it is neither of yours but a failure of a wider community of people, a culture, to hold those experiences and make it possible for them to heal without the two of you having to do it alone (or alone with isolating professional support, but without a larger culture of acceptance for those who have lived through serious harm).
You can't know if 'it was never going to land' because you can't read the future, but I hear you that if it was all falling on you, that would be too much for any one person, and our culture let both of you down.
The article doesn't seem to say there are any unusual needs here of the sort you've been describing. I am wondering if there is a mix of truth and fear in what people are reading into it. It doesn't sound like when he goes away for a month she spirals into suicide attempts - quite the opposite.
posted by Twitterdude at 12:22 PM on August 4, 2016
That support is not the stigmatizing kind of acting like the problem is inside them, when it is actually in the violence done to them (cigarettes on the arm sounds like a serious abuse scenario). The problem isn't in the partner, but neither is it in you - it is an extended network of care, consisting of family, friend, ally, and professional care, and a culture that is non-stigmatizing and non-isolating where you can talk about trauma the way you can talk about having a cold. This culture we live in is atomized and expects individual partners to heal harm that is beyond any one person's capacity - the thing is that this culture always has to have it be somebody's fault, so if it isn't your fault it must be theirs, when actually it is neither of yours but a failure of a wider community of people, a culture, to hold those experiences and make it possible for them to heal without the two of you having to do it alone (or alone with isolating professional support, but without a larger culture of acceptance for those who have lived through serious harm).
You can't know if 'it was never going to land' because you can't read the future, but I hear you that if it was all falling on you, that would be too much for any one person, and our culture let both of you down.
The article doesn't seem to say there are any unusual needs here of the sort you've been describing. I am wondering if there is a mix of truth and fear in what people are reading into it. It doesn't sound like when he goes away for a month she spirals into suicide attempts - quite the opposite.
posted by Twitterdude at 12:22 PM on August 4, 2016
I see nothing in there about boundaries. We can't just fill in the blanks and say that, oh hey, boundaries will be respected when we've been in and seen relationships where "if you really loved me you wouldn't say no to my human needs" was put on the table.
Note that my perspective is the converse. My partner and I have nearly unconditional trust because we treat each other's boundaries as a big fucking deal. We understand that we're not available 24/7, and that unavailability isn't some breach of relationship trust that needs to be healed the next day. Arguing that we need to evolve to a point where we don't have Bad Mental Health Days in order to have emotional intimacy is both patronizing and abilist. One problem with the article and your defense of it is the absence of a middle ground and the imposition of dichotomous categories that leave no room for negotiation of individualized and healthy boundaries and trust.
Fear, when cultivated properly, is a superpower that can provide a strong sense for detecting bullshit. Making autonomy conditional on unconditional anything is rapey. Shouting and yelling can be both a demand for connection and part of cycles of abuse. While it is true that people engaged in abuse may, in turn, be deeply damaged themselves, the act of abuse requires hard choices about if and how to maintain the relationship.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 1:14 PM on August 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
Note that my perspective is the converse. My partner and I have nearly unconditional trust because we treat each other's boundaries as a big fucking deal. We understand that we're not available 24/7, and that unavailability isn't some breach of relationship trust that needs to be healed the next day. Arguing that we need to evolve to a point where we don't have Bad Mental Health Days in order to have emotional intimacy is both patronizing and abilist. One problem with the article and your defense of it is the absence of a middle ground and the imposition of dichotomous categories that leave no room for negotiation of individualized and healthy boundaries and trust.
Fear, when cultivated properly, is a superpower that can provide a strong sense for detecting bullshit. Making autonomy conditional on unconditional anything is rapey. Shouting and yelling can be both a demand for connection and part of cycles of abuse. While it is true that people engaged in abuse may, in turn, be deeply damaged themselves, the act of abuse requires hard choices about if and how to maintain the relationship.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 1:14 PM on August 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
I don't get the sense that those flaws are intentional, more that they're a bad generalization.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 1:45 PM on August 4, 2016
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 1:45 PM on August 4, 2016
Hey CBrachyrhynchos,
"Making autonomy conditional on unconditional anything is rapey. "
I used to completely agree with you.
And I still agree that anything good can be used in a not-good way. So there may be elements of what you're saying I agree with.
But what's cool about understanding attachment (I love this stuff, have devoured the books from this blog and others since finding them) is that this idea of utter autonomy works in theory but doesn't work in practice. In practice, if my kid needs a hug and I don't feel like hugging them, I kinda just hug them anyway. Sometimes you just need to meet people's needs. Nobody, nobody, ever, owes anybody sex. And we don't owe much to random strangers on the street - I mean we owe any human basic human decency but we definitely don't owe emotional energy or conversation to strangers. With the people we love, though, we sometimes do 'owe' one another human connection. Parenting is a great example; it's a kind of surrender to the needs of another. And as that 'other' grows up we help them learn that they also reciprocate, that they can be good at taking care of people while listening to their bodies. If we are in relationship, if we care, if we want the person to know we are with them, we have to get really good at listening to our own bodies in ways that also are responsive and flexible. This is really the goal. When people use 'boundary' to mean 'brick wall' (and i've done this myself in the past) I think they're not fully breathing into what boundaries actually are.
posted by Twitterdude at 2:13 PM on August 4, 2016
"Making autonomy conditional on unconditional anything is rapey. "
I used to completely agree with you.
And I still agree that anything good can be used in a not-good way. So there may be elements of what you're saying I agree with.
But what's cool about understanding attachment (I love this stuff, have devoured the books from this blog and others since finding them) is that this idea of utter autonomy works in theory but doesn't work in practice. In practice, if my kid needs a hug and I don't feel like hugging them, I kinda just hug them anyway. Sometimes you just need to meet people's needs. Nobody, nobody, ever, owes anybody sex. And we don't owe much to random strangers on the street - I mean we owe any human basic human decency but we definitely don't owe emotional energy or conversation to strangers. With the people we love, though, we sometimes do 'owe' one another human connection. Parenting is a great example; it's a kind of surrender to the needs of another. And as that 'other' grows up we help them learn that they also reciprocate, that they can be good at taking care of people while listening to their bodies. If we are in relationship, if we care, if we want the person to know we are with them, we have to get really good at listening to our own bodies in ways that also are responsive and flexible. This is really the goal. When people use 'boundary' to mean 'brick wall' (and i've done this myself in the past) I think they're not fully breathing into what boundaries actually are.
posted by Twitterdude at 2:13 PM on August 4, 2016
Parenting is a great example; it's a kind of surrender to the needs of another.
Parenting isn't really an apt analogy here. Parents are legally, morally, and biologically required to put the needs of their (minor) children ahead of their own. Legally and morally because we know that children are in many ways helpless. Biologically because our genes are selfish.
No adult should require anything unconditionally from any other person. In healthy relationships, secure attachment happens because neither one needs to make ultimatums. Each partner can, and sometimes does, choose to surrender their needs to the other, but they also might not, and that's OK, it's not making anyone "unsafe" or "re-traumatizing" or "anti-feminist" or any of the accusations that the author makes about men who aren't like Jordan.
posted by sparklemotion at 2:53 PM on August 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
Parenting isn't really an apt analogy here. Parents are legally, morally, and biologically required to put the needs of their (minor) children ahead of their own. Legally and morally because we know that children are in many ways helpless. Biologically because our genes are selfish.
No adult should require anything unconditionally from any other person. In healthy relationships, secure attachment happens because neither one needs to make ultimatums. Each partner can, and sometimes does, choose to surrender their needs to the other, but they also might not, and that's OK, it's not making anyone "unsafe" or "re-traumatizing" or "anti-feminist" or any of the accusations that the author makes about men who aren't like Jordan.
posted by sparklemotion at 2:53 PM on August 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yes, that is the thinking of an individualist culture. And it is also needed at times - in serious abuse situations sometimes you just have to leave (I've done this; I agree). However, at what age does your kid no longer have the 'right' to come and connect with you? 14? 18? 25? 35? Is there some magic cut-off point where human beings, who literally begin inside other human beings, become these autonomous atomized distinct creatures who can survive entirely on their own? What happens at 80? at 90? Do we leave 95 year old people to change their own clothes because we 'don't feel like it' on a given day? The idea that no one ought to ever impose needs on another is a lovely idea, but it just isn't biological reality. If we invert the story about who we are, we become better able to create actual independence, because we aren't constantly fighting our physical existence. Leaning in to interdependence is kind of like getting into water. At first it feels foreign, and then you start swimming. And then there's lots and lots of freedom of movement there. If you just are like 'fuck this water is not part of me!' you can't really learn how to swim in it and get the joy of the freedom that comes of trusting the water. I think maybe human autonomy is something akin.
posted by Twitterdude at 3:27 PM on August 4, 2016
posted by Twitterdude at 3:27 PM on August 4, 2016
Leaning in to interdependence is kind of like getting into water. At first it feels foreign, and then you start swimming. And then there's lots and lots of freedom of movement there.
Swimming is great fun, but if you aren't allowed to get out of the water, eventually you will drown.
posted by sparklemotion at 3:31 PM on August 4, 2016
Swimming is great fun, but if you aren't allowed to get out of the water, eventually you will drown.
posted by sparklemotion at 3:31 PM on August 4, 2016
it's not a perfect metaphor. Use walking, or breathing, or any other fundamentally trust-based experience. If you fight gravity, you can't experience the freedom within it (dancing, circus and arial arts, tumbling, walking, running). If you accept the biological reality, you discover it always already had all the room you need. I think this might be what limbic models are teaching us about human existence that a lot of more collectivist cultures already know, but that somehow western culture fights like we can make it go away if we just close our eyes long enough.
posted by Twitterdude at 3:38 PM on August 4, 2016
posted by Twitterdude at 3:38 PM on August 4, 2016
So, when kids are young, we just meet their needs. And then when we get old, those same kids can grow up and be like "sorry, I'm autonomous, I don't feel like taking care of you now?" Cuz that's the implication of this idea that 'no adult should ever impose a need on another adult.' If the ones who believe that may be the same ones who don't actually do lots of really needed care, it falls on those who see need and meet it to do care. Because human beings need care in order to thrive. This may be why women tend to come home and take care of aging parents more, statistically. Sometimes meeting people's needs just isn't a choice. Denying it doesn't change it, it just means someone else has to do the care you don't do. So how do we work within it?
posted by Twitterdude at 3:44 PM on August 4, 2016
posted by Twitterdude at 3:44 PM on August 4, 2016
Twitterdude: In what ways is my bodily autonomy at the bus stop earlier this evening dependent on my emotional availability to strangers?
Do we not teach children to respect the bodily autonomy of others and do no harm, at least without thinking of the consequences?
On what grounds is sex a special case when any form of nonconsensual touch can be harmful to a person? I'm failing to see why that should be transactional or conditional. Being touched during a panic attack causes me harm. I have the right to warn off adults wishing to do so, regardless of whether they're disappointed or not.
And here's another problem with this article. Not wanting to talk, cuddle, or fuck at any given point or time is rarely about my partner. It's usually about the job, cultural homophobia, finding out that Olympic sports has the Penn State problem, feeling physically ill because I've been hospitalized three times so far this year, the delayed funeral plans, the therapy session I had this morning, seeing a dying bird on the sidewalk, lacking the words or concepts to understand what's in headspace today. Partners who love me understand that I do have an emotional life that doesn't involve them.
From where are you getting the ideas of "utter autonomy" or a "brick wall?" Having autonomy doesn't mean I don't give out hugs to people who need them. It means I respect people who say "no," and expect others will in return. Why? Because I don't want to be an asshole, not because they've been reliable or dependable at some point in the past. Now if that makes the relationship unsustainable, it's time to have a serious talk about that.
What happens at 80? at 90? Do we leave 95 year old people to change their own clothes because we 'don't feel like it' on a given day?
Well, unfortunately I've had to deal with exactly this in the last few years, and sometimes you gotta tap out and let someone else deal with the shit for a change. (Or better yet, we discovered 10 days into my turn in that there are assistive devices for ass-wiping. It was a win-win for everyone involved in the ass-wiping problem.)
But it's one heck of a slippery slope from "don't touch/fuck me without consent" to child and elder abuse. And now you're engaging in bad anthropology to culturally pathologize those of us who reserve the right to say, "no."
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 3:45 PM on August 4, 2016
Do we not teach children to respect the bodily autonomy of others and do no harm, at least without thinking of the consequences?
On what grounds is sex a special case when any form of nonconsensual touch can be harmful to a person? I'm failing to see why that should be transactional or conditional. Being touched during a panic attack causes me harm. I have the right to warn off adults wishing to do so, regardless of whether they're disappointed or not.
And here's another problem with this article. Not wanting to talk, cuddle, or fuck at any given point or time is rarely about my partner. It's usually about the job, cultural homophobia, finding out that Olympic sports has the Penn State problem, feeling physically ill because I've been hospitalized three times so far this year, the delayed funeral plans, the therapy session I had this morning, seeing a dying bird on the sidewalk, lacking the words or concepts to understand what's in headspace today. Partners who love me understand that I do have an emotional life that doesn't involve them.
From where are you getting the ideas of "utter autonomy" or a "brick wall?" Having autonomy doesn't mean I don't give out hugs to people who need them. It means I respect people who say "no," and expect others will in return. Why? Because I don't want to be an asshole, not because they've been reliable or dependable at some point in the past. Now if that makes the relationship unsustainable, it's time to have a serious talk about that.
What happens at 80? at 90? Do we leave 95 year old people to change their own clothes because we 'don't feel like it' on a given day?
Well, unfortunately I've had to deal with exactly this in the last few years, and sometimes you gotta tap out and let someone else deal with the shit for a change. (Or better yet, we discovered 10 days into my turn in that there are assistive devices for ass-wiping. It was a win-win for everyone involved in the ass-wiping problem.)
But it's one heck of a slippery slope from "don't touch/fuck me without consent" to child and elder abuse. And now you're engaging in bad anthropology to culturally pathologize those of us who reserve the right to say, "no."
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 3:45 PM on August 4, 2016
"at any given point or time" is the crux. the piece - to my read anyway- just doesn't seem to be saying that adults don't figure out when . (am I just reading it differently than you? Where does it say that boundaries can't be navigated?) It is just - I think, anyway - saying that adults say no in a way that is responsive to the other person's need and accessible to them. ie "I love you, I can't connect right now but how about in a couple of hours?" or "I can't handle touch right now, would it help if we just sit near each other quietly?" or "Hey I really need to be alone right now, how can I help you get your need met in a way I can handle," and then being responsive to the answer, is very different from "No, I cannot meet your need, go away." Or the myriad ways adults who put 'autonomy' above connection might unskillfully harm trust.
posted by Twitterdude at 3:51 PM on August 4, 2016
posted by Twitterdude at 3:51 PM on August 4, 2016
ie isn't the whole point of the thing that they got really good at navigating boundaries, so it got easier?
posted by Twitterdude at 3:53 PM on August 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Twitterdude at 3:53 PM on August 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
Twitterdude: Cuz that's the implication of this idea that 'no adult should ever impose a need on another adult.'
Exactly what are you quoting here? Because the actual statement was, "No adult should require anything unconditionally from any other person." Which you conceded with, "And it is also needed at times - in serious abuse situations sometimes you just have to leave (I've done this; I agree)." Before taking off again in a gallop regarding a conception of socioeconomic independence that really has not a damned fucking thing to do with what we're talking about. That's something I noted in a previous post that talking about autonomy within rape culture in terms of spending a week at art camp really muddies the water.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 3:56 PM on August 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
Exactly what are you quoting here? Because the actual statement was, "No adult should require anything unconditionally from any other person." Which you conceded with, "And it is also needed at times - in serious abuse situations sometimes you just have to leave (I've done this; I agree)." Before taking off again in a gallop regarding a conception of socioeconomic independence that really has not a damned fucking thing to do with what we're talking about. That's something I noted in a previous post that talking about autonomy within rape culture in terms of spending a week at art camp really muddies the water.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 3:56 PM on August 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
ie isn't the whole point of the thing that they got really good at navigating boundaries, so it got easier?
I think it is. My objection is that Samaran places "autonomy" much higher up on the hierarchy of needs than I'd like, and you can't really navigate boundaries without assuming that they, also, are often "limbic-brain" needs.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 4:27 PM on August 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think it is. My objection is that Samaran places "autonomy" much higher up on the hierarchy of needs than I'd like, and you can't really navigate boundaries without assuming that they, also, are often "limbic-brain" needs.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 4:27 PM on August 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
It is just - I think, anyway - saying that adults say no in a way that is responsive to the other person's need and accessible to them. ie "I love you, I can't connect right now but how about in a couple of hours?" or "I can't handle touch right now, would it help if we just sit near each other quietly?
I think this is where we are reading the piece differently. Because the author doesn't talk about this kind of negotiation. She says this:
She implies that if he did not do those things, then he would not be "a safe man." Which of course leads to the implication that if he were not "safe" he would be "dangerous", and therefore "bad" in some way. She never talks about his needs (besides his impliedly selfish desire for autonomy), nor does she talk about accepting something less than what she "needs" from that particular person.
Obviously, no man is an island, we, as human beings, have needs that must be met by other human beings. But to say to any particular individual: you must do these things for me when I demand them or you are a bad person is manipulative at best, abusive at worse, and definitely rapey if they are the wrong things in the wrong contexts.
One of the more bogus reasons that parents tell the childfree that they will "regret" the decision not to procreate is that "but you'll have no one you when you're old." Children aren't obligated to meet their parent's needs, and to have children for that purpose is one of the most selfish things I can imagine. That doesn't mean that I want elderly folks with no younger family to be abandoned, we, as a society have a responsibility to take care of them. But the responsibility to meet those needs doesn't fall on any individual.
posted by sparklemotion at 5:31 PM on August 4, 2016 [3 favorites]
I think this is where we are reading the piece differently. Because the author doesn't talk about this kind of negotiation. She says this:
As Wired For Love describes, in secure attachment, we give one another the power to access us any time we need.and:
As secure attachers do, he doesn’t determine for me when I need him; I decide that.and gives an example of her pulling him away from his work so that he could meet her needs right that second.
She implies that if he did not do those things, then he would not be "a safe man." Which of course leads to the implication that if he were not "safe" he would be "dangerous", and therefore "bad" in some way. She never talks about his needs (besides his impliedly selfish desire for autonomy), nor does she talk about accepting something less than what she "needs" from that particular person.
Obviously, no man is an island, we, as human beings, have needs that must be met by other human beings. But to say to any particular individual: you must do these things for me when I demand them or you are a bad person is manipulative at best, abusive at worse, and definitely rapey if they are the wrong things in the wrong contexts.
One of the more bogus reasons that parents tell the childfree that they will "regret" the decision not to procreate is that "but you'll have no one you when you're old." Children aren't obligated to meet their parent's needs, and to have children for that purpose is one of the most selfish things I can imagine. That doesn't mean that I want elderly folks with no younger family to be abandoned, we, as a society have a responsibility to take care of them. But the responsibility to meet those needs doesn't fall on any individual.
posted by sparklemotion at 5:31 PM on August 4, 2016 [3 favorites]
It's so interesting. I see the piece saying the person who wants autonomy has to choose, actively and willingly , to be accessible and responsive. I don't see it being about the person demanding anything. That's probably where we're reading it differently.
posted by Twitterdude at 7:19 PM on August 4, 2016
posted by Twitterdude at 7:19 PM on August 4, 2016
It's not a "want." It's a human need only slightly more abstract than eating and shitting to not have one's flight/fight response unnecessarily and unwillingly provoked by unwanted touch.
And it costs so little to observe the many little social body-language rituals we use to negotiate touch. Ask and ye shall receive. Assume and you're an asshole.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 8:49 PM on August 4, 2016
And it costs so little to observe the many little social body-language rituals we use to negotiate touch. Ask and ye shall receive. Assume and you're an asshole.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 8:49 PM on August 4, 2016
but where does it say that it's instantaneous? responsiveness isn't always touch - it can be looking at the person like you care about them while you let them know if they need you, but you don't want touch, you can sit next to them and feel connection for a while. it seems to me there's a quality of responsiveness that is different from instant immediate meeting of another person's need, within a larger understanding that you'll meet needs, generally, as soon as you can. If you really experience spontaneous touch from a partner who you trust as very likely to initiate flight/flight response, to the extent that they have to ask before every hug, isn't it doable to own that that's unusual and that you can work on getting more comfortable with things like hugs? doesn't mean if it is a very strong avoidant response in you that they can impose, but nor does it mean you can just stay very touch-avoidant without working on expanding your capacity or finding other ways to connect?
posted by Twitterdude at 10:16 PM on August 4, 2016
posted by Twitterdude at 10:16 PM on August 4, 2016
Spontaneous touch can still be non-verbally negotiated using a theory of mind that considers the other person as something other than your personal vending machine (autonomy). Words do, in fact, convey meaning and switching the meaning from unwanted to spontaneous for the purpose of framing one side of the discussion as pathological is crazy-making. It's not necessarily about being touch-avoidant. It's about being asshole-avoidant, avoiding assholes who feel entitled to one's body at any moment according what's convenient for them.
As I said above, it costs nothing to make eye contact and do a quick scan of body language before stepping into another person's space.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 4:36 AM on August 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
As I said above, it costs nothing to make eye contact and do a quick scan of body language before stepping into another person's space.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 4:36 AM on August 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
I apologize. And yes, all humans ought to observe what their intimate's body language is saying and respond to it in a good way (this is responsiveness, not just giving care by offering touch but also giving care by offering not-touch). Replacing unwanted with spontaneous wasn't my meaning. I had in mind how earlier today I was watching friends of mine who are a couple who've been together happily for 20 years. One partner is more on the avoidant side and one is more on the connectey-side by nature, and they have grown into something together that is in the middle (secure). They both say that when they first met, he would automatically move away when anyone sat near him (including her). His body has an automatic 'human is too close' feeling. Yet they have kids and as a family they are very affectionate. I see her go to him for hugs many times in the day and he just opens his arms and he has become aware of wanting this kind of connection, by getting used to doing it. This isn't what came naturally and yet it is what he likes now, because he has adjusted to it (he misses it when she has to work a lot and can't cuddle/connect with him). Their 13 year old son, between video games and biking day trips and playing D&D with his best friend and learning how to kayak and cut down trees, has never had affection shamed out of him (they're unschoolers, they go to a brick and mortar free school), and has kept his ability to cuddle with his mum and aunties and dad even in public with other people around and doesn't seem to think anything of it. He is nurturing to younger kids and to his friends of his own age and loves affection. He says he loves cuddles. How many 13 year old boys will lovingly hold their grandmother's hand in a restaurant and kiss her hand and say he loves her, without any self-consciousness at all? Something about the way these folks are parenting has kept this child whole in a way that I didn't even understand was gone from many adult men until I watched this kid grow up. I've known him since he was 1 and he has just been wholly himself the whole time. If all adult men had kept their whole selves we would be living in a very different world. That is all i mean.
Apparently under every avoidant attacher is an anxious attacher in pain that has been numbed out. That's what I mean.
posted by Twitterdude at 6:44 AM on August 5, 2016
Apparently under every avoidant attacher is an anxious attacher in pain that has been numbed out. That's what I mean.
posted by Twitterdude at 6:44 AM on August 5, 2016
Twitterdude: So.. some people say the article looks like a recipe for emotional abuse and in response you spend however many pages riding your mostly off-topic hobby horse about affection and child rearing.
posted by yonega at 4:19 PM on August 5, 2016
posted by yonega at 4:19 PM on August 5, 2016
the article reads to me, and to a lot of people in my circles it seems, as a way to correct/repair an existing pattern of sexist gaslighting that a lot of women seem to be living through. on this page it seems people are getting wigged out by memories of bad experiences, but it doesn't look like those come from the article itself (as a good number of the readers here have also said). Of course I'd back people getting out of serious abuse situations (i've done it). But that's a different thing than erasing experiences of sexist violence that are naturalized by our culture, which is how I read the piece (and how a lot of people in my feed are apparently reading it). Figuring out which it is seems to matter, as what we define as normal is pretty central to what we define as gaslighting.
posted by Twitterdude at 4:36 PM on August 5, 2016
posted by Twitterdude at 4:36 PM on August 5, 2016
If you want to talk gaslighting, how about the author editing her post to no longer contain some of the more problematic quotes people pulled out earlier in this thread.
posted by yonega at 8:10 PM on August 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by yonega at 8:10 PM on August 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
I was wondering why the crazy wasn't quite so evident anymore when I went to pull quotes on Thursday. I was actually starting to feel kind of bad like maybe I'd misjudged her or something.
I'm glad to know that I don't need to waste my time reading any more of her writing.
posted by sparklemotion at 9:52 PM on August 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm glad to know that I don't need to waste my time reading any more of her writing.
posted by sparklemotion at 9:52 PM on August 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
Mod note: Twitterdude, I'm a moderator for Metafilter, and I'm going to ask you to cease commenting here, and contact us to discuss general standards for what we would term "good faith" participation on the site especially in a situation where you may be connected to the author of a discussed piece. Everyone else, please carry on the original conversation. Thanks.
posted by taz (staff) at 1:32 AM on August 6, 2016
posted by taz (staff) at 1:32 AM on August 6, 2016
« Older Eureka! Mycorrhiza | Equal Pay For Comparable Work Becomes Law In... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by xingcat at 10:43 AM on August 2, 2016 [13 favorites]