My own autism doesn't count though

Post Reply New Topic

I've often had the impulse to break something, or to cut myself. I never gave into self-harm, because I knew I'd regret it. Rarely will I throw or break something from anger, and if I do it's pretty harmless and I'm alone. The impulse is strong, but I never found it hard to think through the consequences of these actions and try something else. My question, for people who act on them, is: do you think through the consequences and find the impulse too strong to divert (or is it too uncomfortable to divert it?), or is it something you tend not to think through in the moment?

Never had a pen pal. Weird coincidences are par for the course in my life

Oh I see. I was focused more on his mother playing the autism card. The real problem is your mother is showing him more sympathy. Or even sympathy period, whereas you receive little to none. That is a problem.

Good for you but this wasn't about feminism. It's just that society has this toxic mindset where they tolerate childish behavior in men but not in women.

See for me that's because of sexism.
Feel free to disagree though.

For me it's like being drunk. Technically you still have choices but you don't to the same extent. You don't think through what you're doing.
I've been physically violent as a kid but resisted the urge as an adult. But I've tried to shout everything offensive I can think of, every little thing which you usually bottle up.
I know I have low impulse control at those times so I try not to be around things that cause it. And then I try to control my anger during it but it's like being drunk where impulse controls are lower.
It's like I really want to win the argument at all costs including breaking people's hearts even the people I love/especially the people I love.
I feel so guilty about it when it's not happening.
Yours is more like the stereotypical female meltdown and mine more like the stereotypical male one. I find that interesting considering our sexes. Goes to show how bs this sexist stuff is. I have more time for people who get upset than people who get angry, even though it's not really a conscious choice once you reach adulthood.
I'm sorry you self harm. I've never had that impulse but feel sorry for people who do.
Does lowering sensory input help you? It does me. That's why I get so cross when people take photos and increase light in public cos then I can't go out in public to those places.

Nah, it has roots in the past. Women had to be responsible because they had a family which they had to take care of, plus they had to be a psychical support to the man (many of them, however, had their own idea of how a 'psychical support' looks like, for example lashing out on the wife with beating). They couldn't afford to lose a man because that would mean ending up homeless. Too bad people didn't know that women aren't rehab centres. It's just strange that women then were probably braver than now, yet when it came to standing up for their own rights, it took them quite long to do anything.

Yeah, it's from a sexist past though. What people are thinking doesn't exist in a vacuum. I'm not saying people are thinking in a sexist way on purpose or even that they don't come from a good place.
It's a good thing that (thanks to feminism) things exist now like women's shelters and recognition that domestic violence is a police matter. And that NT/non-disabled women can get jobs fairly easily these days.
I'm not actually surprised it took women a long time to stand up for their own rights. There's the financial aspect to consider (supporting oneself in that sort of a society as a woman - living on a typist's/shop girl's wages with kids to support when most places wouldn't hire mothers anyway) and the mental aspect. Either she was NT and needed to appear normal/desirable socially or she was aspie/autistic and abusers are good at working on autistic people/ND people's buttons and weaknesses.
And also, physically, unless you've got the law on your side or a good firearm, if you're physically weaker than someone then standing up against them takes a lot of guts and might leave you dead at the end of it. Either fighting someone or running away in such circumstances.
This is just talking about the 1950s, let alone the 1850s when wives belonged to husbands and it was legal for husbands to do whatever they wanted, apart from murder. And in the early 19th century, murder of a husband was 'petty treason'.

"Standing up for their rights" as in starting a revolution. If they did or at least tried, the conditions could've changed much sooner for them. I think most of the women just didn't know anything else besides taking care of household and couldn't manage to do work which required great force. There had to be at least one man in the house, to do the force-requiring work and to provide for the family. After the living standard began to increase and women became part of the working class, they didn't need men as much as before. They weren't "held hostage" anymore and could be independent, which is why they probably started taking the steps to their equality. It is definitely awful that men gained the superiority status only thanks to being physically stronger.

I think we're on the same page with this, whatever we call it.
I think most oppressions start this way. I suspect the first set of oppressions were physical. Sexism against women, ageism against the elderly, bad treatment of children*, ableism against the physically disabled.
Then came things like tribalism and some tribes being more powerful than others which led to racism, mass fear of those who behaved differently which led to ableism against the mentally ill/NT superiority complexes, and wealth inequality which led to classism.
It all starts out of material realities of one group being able to 1 overpower and 2 use the other group.
It's tough to talk about this stuff these days without being called an SJW. Let's just say me and SJWs are massively in disagreement because I put all this stuff down to physical reality and not feelings. I'm still a social lefty though.

*Bad treatment of children is a bit different because, actually, ageism is good when it comes to kids. Not discrimination against them but helping them. For eg, it's good that the age of consent in the UK is 16 not 12 as it was in the 19th century and that child labour is illegal and childhood education mandatory these days. Treating kids like mini-adults doesn't work in their best interests. It's also illegal to beat kids now (mostly, apart from spanking them) when it was perfectly legal in the 19th century to beat a school boy and lock him in a cage suspended over the classroom...