It’s no excuses for grown men that can’t recognize when they making women uncomfortable, like you’re not always gonna get a hard “No” for a variety of reasons, but it’s up to you to recognize and respect any nonverbal form of communication, otherwise you risk putting someone else (and yourself) in a dangerous situation, and at that point, you’re in the wrong.
What if the guy is autistic and can’t read non-verbal cues?
My issue with this is that consent is required, so even if you can’t read non-verbal cues due to some sort of neurodivergence, you didn’t receive a hard yes, so you have to assume that’s a no. I really don’t want to conflate autistic people with predators who choose to be predators, and even autism doesn’t excuse being a predator
Also I’m autistic and often miss non-verbal cues- so instead I’ve always tried to make sure to y’know, ask and reassure my partner that a no is safe and will be respected. We’re capable of awareness in these situations. Stop bringing us up in these defenses, especially when so many autistic people are on the victim end of this shit.
Fucking this. ^^^ I’m gonna be honest with you. As a autistic woman, I’m getting *real fucking tired* of autistic men saying this. Autistic men need to stop using this shit as their excuse for harassing women, especially since so often their primary victims are autistic women.
FAIR has deep influence in the Trump administration. As Gomez was allegedly reprimanded for pointing out, former FAIR executive director Julie Kirchner was an advisor to the Trump campaign. She is now the Citizenship and Immigration Services ombudsman within the Department of Homeland Security. John Zadrozny, another ex-FAIR employee, worked on the White House Domestic Policy Council and is now with the State Department. Ian Smith, formerly employed with FAIR’s legal arm, the Immigration Reform Law Institute, has just resigned his position at Homeland Security. Leaked emails, obtained and shared by the Atlantic, appeared to tie him to white nationalists Richard Spencer and Jared Taylor.
As a medical professional and a medically complicated human this is very important to me
That’s not wrong.
The tone of both comments is what causes poor doctor-patient relationships. Don’t underestimate how much education a doctor has. This doesn’t simply stop with medical school. It continues during residency and fellowship. For good doctors, this continues during practice. Good doctors stay up to date with medical guidelines and the changes that occur over time. Good doctors will research any condition their patient has with which they’re unfamiliar. Good doctors will listen to their patients and gently correct errors and misconceptions. Unfortunately, not all doctors are good doctors.
On the other hand, I’ve learned tons from my patients. Things that no book will ever teach me. As a patient, you deserve to be treated respectfully. Most doctors do their best to listen to their patients. No one puts in the time and effort required to be a physician with the goal of being a shit doctor. Of course, it happens. Doctors are humans and are just as flawed as everyone else. That’s the exception rather than the rule. Please respect the fact that we have a better filter for information than you do, regardless of how long you’ve had an illness. When patients request a specific test that I know is not indicated, I ask WHY. When a patient thinks they have an illness that that subjective and objective data do not support, I ask WHY. What are they concerned about? What is their fear? This is the question that needs to be addressed. That information generally allows me to either come up with a different, more appropriate test or list the reasons why their fear isn’t likely to be a reality. It’s all a two-way street that requires respect from all parties involved. Don’t go to a doctor who doesn’t respect you. Don’t go to a doctor who makes you uncomfortable. Don’t go to a doctor who is overly dismissive of your concerns. These are all red flags that you’re dealing with an asshole who just happens to be a doctor.
I mean, if you’ve got a choice in what doctor you go to, that’s great. I guess I’ve consistently had shit doctors because it wasn’t until… oh, 2010 or so that I had one that would listen to a goddamn word out of my mouth. And then that one retired.
You know why people have an antagonistic reaction to doctors? Because many of them have twenty or thirty years of their questions, concerns, and sometimes even symptoms being outright ignored.
Me at 14: So my periods are leaving me in so much pain I’m throwing up all day.
Doctor: They’ll get better when you have kids.
Me at 16: So I’m getting these crippling headaches.
Doctor: Maybe you should try taking some Tylenol. *writes down the symptoms I gave him COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THAN I SAID THEY WERE* (found that out years later)
Same year, different doctor: So take these I guess. *gives me pain meds that were so strong they affected my pulse, no follow-up*
*insert long gap of just not going to the doctor*
Me at 32: So along with these other symptoms that add up to GERD, if I go too long without eating it makes me sick.
Gastro Doc: Yeah it’s GERD. I want to check for Barret’s esophagus. (this bit I agreed with) Now here’s the advice I give every single GERD patient no matter what, including the bit about not eating for several hours before bed.
Me: Uhhh, if I go too long without eating it makes me really sick.
Gastro doc: Don’t eat before bed.
And then I look for a camera to stare into like the Office.
If someone is antagonistic towards doctors, if someone is aggressive with their own care, if someone outright tells the doctor to their face that they’re wrong… it’s because of a long history of THIS SHIT. It isn’t a rare doctor that ignores you, it’s a rare doctor that doesn’t. They may not go into the medical field to be bad doctors, but they might not have gone into it to do more than get their years in so they can retire, or so Mom and Dad can brag about the doctor in the family, or for the power trip.
So don’t try to tell me that my doctor has my best interests in mind, because historically that’s been rare. That doctor is going to have to prove it, and I am going to be suspicious at first. And this is just me! I’ve got a few weird body things, but overall I’m pretty functional. The periods got better when I was no longer underweight (which I had to figure out for myself), I worked out a routine for my headaches (which my one Really Good doc gave me an idea for the source of the problem, the rest I figured out on my own), my stomach is largely under control (which I had to figure out for myself), and the only thing that’s really acting up right now are my feet (which I am figuring out for myself). The only thing I really go to the doctor for are antibiotics (when I can’t argue any longer that I don’t need them) and my psych meds (which I ALSO FIGURED OUT FOR MYSELF).
So no, I don’t have a lot of patience with doctors pulling the “Well I went to medical school” card. If that makes you so much better than me, why did I have to figure shit out without you?
Our society has a number of loveable buffoons who fool around and are excused from acting like prats because they’re funny. They might be rubbish at most things but as long as their banter is flowing, we put up with it.
These types are almost exclusively men. You don’t get hilarious, idiotic women being lorded as icons of our culture. Diane Abbott is dismissed as a cretin while Boris Johnson is a joker.
Which begs the question: is conscious male incompetence a form of misogyny?
If you labour the point that you can’t cook, then chances are that you won’t be made to cook. If you make a hash out of doing the laundry or hoovering, you’re forcing someone else to take over.
Few have the patience to watch someone do a job badly over and over again and so often, they’ll just take it upon themselves to do your chores as well as their own. Emotional labour is doubled when you’ve got an incompetent clown on your hands.
I was recently listening Semi Circles, a BBC radio comedy starring Paula Wilcox, first broadcast in 1989.
It’s about a housewife who recently wakes up to the fact that she’s spent the past eight years being a slave to her kids and nice-but-emotionally-dim husband.
Part of this awakening is the realisation that she does all the housework because her husband is crap at it. Left alone, he makes inedible food. He lets the kids stay up well beyond their bedtime. He leaves the house a tip.
He doesn’t even try to do a good job because he fears that if he’s too good at these jobs, his wife will make him do more of them.
Put these garbage men in the garbage where they belong.
I went and checked the original source and it’s worse. While most of the comments get the problem (the lying, not the eggs) some of them just cannot see that this shit is actually a big honking warning sign for bigger shit. A loving person is not capable of doing this.
He literally puts his mere convenience over her actual well being. This guy thought up and executed a plan where she has to do *all* the work (because of course it wasn’t just this one specific thing) while he watches her tire herself out from the sidelines. Imagine this going on for *years*. …now imagine this with kids. You think this guy cares if she gets off during sex? Would he take care of her if she were to get sick? Would he ever lift a finger if he could get away not doing it?
She can’t trust a word he says and he doesn’t give a shit about her needs. It’s not about the *eggs*.
Sorry to reblog from you, stranger, but this commentary is all very good. I especially appreciate the emphasized statement that “a loving person is not capable of doing this.” That line is going to rattle around my brain for ages — the words feel good in my mouth. How you’ve said it is just so right.
I want to add some of OP’s further comments on the thread she made:
“To be fair, I have pretty high standards for cleanliness and his idea of clean vastly differs from mine and honestly, that’s okay! But now I’m starting to seriously wonder if he sabotaged cleaning, too, just to get me to do it. Dishes, for instance. He will wash half and leave a nasty sink full of the rest, claiming he’ll do them later. This drives me nuts, so I just do them. Often he will leave crusted on shit on then, too, so okay, I’ll just do them, right? Now because of the egg business, I’m seeing it as malicious.”
→ The husband is lazy. He seemingly commits to housework, only to bail partway through, and doesn’t even put in the effort required to do the job right in the first place.
“Yes, he sucks at dishes and laundry to the point he is banned from doing them. He will leave clothes in the washer overnight and doesnt separate anything to the point I’ve had many white clothes ruined. My favorite white brassiere is now pink due to his bullshit.”
→ The husband is inconsiderate of his wife’s property, even that which is well-loved. Could his repeated failure to learn how to do this task have been a ruse? Did he anticipate his banishment from laundry duty? OP now has to genuinely wonder about this.
“I’m starting to think he does things wrong on purpose now just to get me to do it. Another example! My car. For a while my driver side door wouldn’t open from the outside, so I had to crawl through the passenger side. He ordered a handle and kept putting it off for WEEKS. Finally, he says his hands are too big to do it, so I had to do it.”
→ The husband makes excuses for himself that cast him as an unwitting victim to fate, with the implication that he would totally do [action], if only he could. He distances himself from any possibility of blame.
Obviously, anonymous forum posts are taken with a grain of salt — we, as readers, will never know for sure if OP is real. That’s not a concern for me, though. Like I don’t care. The fact is that if one assumes this is all true, it is very obvious that the poster’s husband is a perfect example of maliciously feigned incompetence. He’s manipulative and lazy to the point of cruelty, expecting his wife to work while he fails to lift a single functioning finger. The statement that “he likes her eggs better” isn’t cute like some have stated in the replies to this post; it’s just another excuse that walls him off from criticism, a bullshit reason he pulled out of his ass to make her feel guilty and unreasonable for being upset.
The absurdity of the situation when taken at face value — lying about eggs, getting mad about making eggs, even just the reality of deviled eggs (an inherently silly prep style) being someone’s favorite food — extends an air of the absurd to the wife’s concerns, and to others’ warnings. I have noticed several comments to the tune of, “These people are all mad about eggs? What a joke! How oversensitive. That’s just how men are; this is just what marriage looks like.”
It’s fucked up, is what it is.
…deviled egg lady, if you’re truly out there somewhere, I hope you told your husband to make his own goddamn eggs from now on. It’s literally the least he can do.
@manthedog
“It’s literally the least he can do.”
we all just witnessed a fucking murder and it was beautiful.
By popular request, and explanation of the term “Social Justice Calvinism”
Social Justice Calvinism, like regular Calvinism, revolves around the idea that human society is so steeped in sin that, not only is it inherently irredeemable, but almost everyone involved is essentially damned (to hell, in the case of real Calvinism, to … I dunno being bad, I guess, in the case of Social Justice Calvinism).
Similarly to real Calvinism, Social Justice Calvinism allows for a small, elect group of people who are miraculously able to rise above the morass of evil that is human society (in real Calvinism this is due to G-d’s will, in Social Justice Calvinism, this comes as a result of their overwhelming moral superiority).
As in real Calvinism, nobody knows who the elect of Social Justice Calvinism are, but they are identified by certain signs (in the case of real Calvinism these signs include prosperity, in Social Justice Calvinism, these signs are things like using trigger warnings or sharing photo sets of queer people of color).
Like real Calvinists, Social Justice Calvinists tend to shun and loudly denounce much of the society that they see as inherently corrupt so as to demonstrate (as much to themselves as to everyone else) that they are likely to be members of the elect. However, because membership in the elect is impossible to determine, a Social Justice Calvinists are often wracked by guilt and anxiety as to whether or not they are actually members of the elect.
Finally, and most importantly, much of Social Justice Calvinism’s appeal comes from its goal of challenging a corrupt and oppressive power structure, and its hints of moral clarity. Social Justice Calvinism so especially frustrating because the things that are being fought for are so important (see I’m one of the elect). As with salvation and prosperity in real Calvinism, many of the signs of goals and signs of the Social Justice Calvinist elect are actually quite desirable, but unfortunately they come at the price of believing that nearly everyone, up to and including you, is damned.
… wow, everything I’ve ever thought about The Discourse in a neat post. OP you’re a blessing.
we could probably have a long debate about the fact that social justice calvinists come from the US and US society was basically born out of calvinism…
This is reminding me a whole lot of a certain kind of evangelical atheism I’ve run into here and there.
I feel like maybe there’s some kind of meta-morality that people internalize when they’re young, that’s less about what constitutes right and wrong and more about how one perceives the whole idea of rightness and wrongness.
Do you consider it your responsibility to tell others about what’s right and wrong, and correct them if they are in error? Is it permissible to tolerate other people’s wrong behavior and/or wrong belief to any degree at all? Is there only one kind of right behavior and/or right belief, or is some variation okay? Are people generally good/right or generally bad/wrong, and does that include you too? Can a person do wrong and also do right, and if so, do either of those somehow negate the other? And so on.
I don’t know if meta-morality is harder to change than its subject matter or if people are just less likely to try, but it certainly seems to happen a lot that people break away entirely from the moral/religious code that they were raised with and then apply exactly the same meta-moral framework to whatever new code they embrace in its place.
Urocyon's Jaunts 2.0 
You must be logged in to post a comment.