batmanisagatewaydrug:

napfa:

batmanisagatewaydrug:

I think we’re kind of starting to get away from this but have y’all noticed how in the vast majority of popular media, sex scenes don’t actually tend to involve a lot of talking/fumbling/awkwardness unless it’s for humor or to indicate that the people having sex are a.) probably Wrong for each other somehow or b.) inexperienced, possibly having sex for the first time?

but “good” sex, between people who are experienced and In Love etc, is almost always effortlessly athletic and steamy and they somehow telepathically know exactly what to do. I’m not talking about knowing what their lover enjoys, that’s entirely feasible, but they never even have to coordinate what they’re doing. there’s no “do you want me on top?” or “do you want to do [x]?” or accidentally getting in each other’s way.

the overwhelming message that I’ve always gotten from pop culture is that Good Sex happens without communication and, more dangerously, that needing to communicate is a sign that you’re somehow bad at sex, when in reality that’s almost definitely a sign that you’re, you know, a considerate partner who actually gives a shit about people being comfortable when they have sex with you.  

why doesn’t this have more notes

because I posted it less than 12 hours ago; give it time, friend

If the mean people in our lives were crappy 100% of the time, it would be easy to leave them. We would shrink from becoming friends with them or jump aboard the nope rocket in the early stages of trouble, and we would feel only relief when they are gone from our lives.

The problem is that very few people are evil all the time. They don’t wear villain costumes purchased at ForeverEvil. They don’t laugh maniacally and stroke their evil goatees while monologuing about their evil plans. They appear in our lives as People-Who-Would-Be-Awesome-Except-For-That-One-Glaring-Problem. They have potential to be awesome, and sometimes they are awesome, and they make us feel awesome, so we relax and let out that breath we’ve been holding in, and then BAM! They show their mean side, and we do a ton of mental work trying to reconcile the mean stuff with the awesome stuff.

Breaking up brings relief, as you lose the constant mental labor of managing the relationship AND the stress of being constantly disappointed and hurt, but it also brings grief. Shitty people who forget your birthday and give little backhanded compliments and gossip about your secrets sometimes give really good hugs, or presents, or are your favorite people to get drunk and watch figure-skating with, or were the sole witness to an important time in your life. The good times were real.

Captain Awkward

I cannot express how much of a lightbulb moment it was when I realized people did not have to be unilaterally awful in order for you not to want to be in a relationship with them

(via geekybombshell)

the-party-pineapple:

larpsandtherealgirl:

criticalanalytical:

this is what the rise of pedophile culture looks like–little girls are being indoctrinated into beauty rituals at earlier and earlier ages to feed the misogynistic pedophilic male gaze.

this is what the intersection of capitalism and misogyny looks like–fashion and beauty products are being marketed to females no matter their age as long as is generates profit and feeds the male gaze.

this is what porn culture looks like–due in part to the widespread availability of porn, females are considered sexual objects before they are considered human beings and so no matter what, a female must always be sexually available and presentable to men.

^Exactly. Please, when you see young girls who look like this, remember not to blame the literal children for their own oppression. They’re just trying to “fit in” and be accepted by their peers. Blame the fucking adults who sell them this image and profit from it.

Thank you for explaining what bothered me about children looking like that. I could never quite put my finger on it.

Yesterday, you reblogged a post that bought into the false dichotomy of convenience food vs “hipster healthy” food. “Mom&pop healthy” is as cheap/cheaper than convenience food. Get a fridge. Most fresh foods keep 2 weeks if stored properly, make a weekly grocery trip to have no waste. Healthy eating means getting the nutrition you need and not going over the calories you need. Apples and hard-boiled eggs are both convenient and healthy. Learn to cook. You can be poor and eat healthy.

crystallinecrow:

geekhyena:

animalsustainability:

seananmcguire:

Aw, howdy, puddin’!

I am…

…reasonably middle class, which is a miracle for a full-time author.
…equipped of a fridge, a pantry, a chest freezer, and a working kitchen.
…capable of cooking for myself and others.

I am also…

…the daughter of a woman who raised three daughters on welfare.
…formerly homeless.
…a fat woman who has to fight not to slip back into disordered eating habits because of items #1 and #2.
…someone who goes to the grocery store multiple times a week.
…regularly furious about food waste in my own home when people refuse to eat their leftovers/help eat communal leftovers.

So let’s go.

The specific post I reblogged worked from the base premise that it is easier to eat, where “eat” is defined as “get sufficient calories to not feel hungry,” when you are not making a concerted effort to “eat healthy.”  It cited things like “a package of extremely filling oatmeal cookies for a dollar,” and “behold, ramen.”  Interestingly, it did not cite anything to support the “false dichotomy” you’re accusing me of supporting: for reference, here’s the link  http://seananmcguire.tumblr.com/post/164447064675/heyatleastitsnotcancer-candygirl1997

(There is a cranky comment about non-GMO unicorn poop, but as hipsters don’t actually eat shit, that seems less “dichotomy,” and more “angry.”)

But hey, that seems suspiciously like people wanting other people to stop dictating their food choices and assuming they’re eating that way out of necessity, and not because they’re lazy.  That can’t be right!  We need someone who’s seen both sides!

And that’s why now, as someone who used to eat out of dumpsters, as someone who was lucky enough to be poor in farming country and hence have access to produce seconds (IE, bruised and ugly fruit that no one else wanted), as someone who is emotionally incapable of looking at meat before checking the discount meat bin at the grocery store, I am going to answer the question of whether it’s cheaper to eat healthy once and for all:

No.

No, it is not.

No, it is fucking not.

I live near an independently owned fruit market.  They have, regularly, red and gold potatoes for $.99 a pound.  They have big Idaho bakers for $.59 a pound.  These are some of the best potato prices I have ever seen.  Had we lived here when I was a kid, I would have eaten potatoes until I wept.  Assuming that potatoes are now the bulk of our diet, and that we’re only eating the cheap ones, that’s a pound of potatoes per person, per day, for a total of $2.40.  Call it $2.50, after tax.  We are now spending $75 a month on potatoes.  No butter or sour cream, because potatoes are already starchy as hell, and fuck taste, but we have potatoes!

Great.  Do we have a kitchen?  We didn’t, always.  For approximately 1/3rd of my childhood, this plan has us eating raw potatoes.  But let’s say sure.  We can cook our plain potatoes.  Say we cook them every night, and have hot potato for dinner, and then cold potato for breakfast.  Can’t eat the school lunch–pretty sure that’s not healthy enough.  So I guess we’ll buy and boil eggs.  You can boil eggs and potatoes in the same pot.

How many eggs do you give the starving, miserable eight-year-old to fill her up?  Ballpark figure?  Is it the same number you give her fourteen-year-old sister?  Is it the same number you take to your back-breaking physical labor job?  We’re ignoring the emotional and social impacts here, and just focusing on the cost.  So say three eggs each.  Maybe everyone’s hungry, but hey, it’s health food.

A dozen eggs is $2.00.  We are now spending $60 a month on eggs.  That’s $135 a month for a diet that is probably not making anyone happy, but hey, at least it’s all easy on the digestion, right?  And if you’re eating three eggs a day, even if you’re soloing this You Should Be Punished For Poverty diet, your eggs aren’t spoiling.  Assuming you have a fridge.

Hope you have a fridge.

Your children have now started going home with friends in hopes of being fed, but that’s okay, because it means you have fewer mouths to feed, and if you don’t want them to be taken away, you need to make sure they don’t get scurvy.  So we’re going to add milk ($3.50 a gallon, hope no one’s lactose intolerant, if you water it down and watch them like a hawk, you can survive on two gallons a week, which adds $28 to your grocery costs, good job) and apples.  Red delicious, of course, which taste like shame, but they’re cheap when the store has them…assuming you’re not in a food desert, where the only apples are coming from the 7-11 at a dollar apiece.

There are so many things we could be buying to make this feel less like a Dickens novel.  There’s baloney, and peanut butter, and generic mac and cheese.  But they’re not healthy.

Eating healthy is a privilege.  When I made a dedicated effort to change my eating habits, my grocery bills increased by 60%.  I have the receipts.  Not because I was buying “brand names”: because I was buying chicken breasts instead of whole chickens, because I was buying fresh instead of frozen, because I was learning to fill up on things other than chips.  That’s just the way we’ve allowed this country to structure our food.

Yes: allowed.  In England–which has its own problems, please don’t take this as me going YAY ENGLAND LAND OF PERFECTION–they have laws setting the prices that can be charged for “staples,” like chicken, and potatoes, and bread, and butter, and eggs, and milk.  It’s much easier to eat healthy there than it is here.

But here, it is a privilege.

And it ought to be a right.

This is why I want to make it part of my life’s work to use research to transform the food system. It’s not as widely advertised but a lot of farm families can’t make ends meet just farming – an off-farm job is required to pay the bills, provide insurance, etc.   Rising land and equipment prices means that it’s hard for people to break into farming, and so the average age of farmers keeps rising.  During drought, many producers lose money. But this is the 2% of American workers that feed everyone else, documented or no.  Don’t they deserve fair wages for their labor? I have known people who only make their business make profit on paper by not paying themselves a salary out of their costs, and these are the people making your hamburgers and lamb chops and chicken. And people my age don’t want to or can’t afford to farm because margins are so thin and the work is so hard, and the cost barriers to entry are so high. And these are people who love these animals, who love the land, who want to do this.  

At the same time, food, especially healthy food, is super expensive, as described above. And if you have food allergies, or health conditions, or are disabled, it’s even worse. I have celiac – I can’t get fast food. I can’t get a lot of the cheap convenience stuff.  And because gluten-free is the fad of the week, people jack up the prices on items I need to live because they don’t associate gluten-free with ‘gluten sends this person to the ER or makes them miss work’, they associate it with bored hipsters trying to avoid “toxins”. And then half the time it isn’t even safe for people with celiac anyways. What are people like me supposed to do when our disability is considered a punchline at best or to be ignored in larger food discussions? 

So if farmers can barely break even in good years, and people have a hard time affording food, where is that money going? How can we ensure that the people producing our food get paid a fair shake for their labor without pricing people out of being able to buy food?  Grass-fed beef is great for forage management and we need to graze these pastures to keep ecosystems healthy, but I admit, my family had it pretty good when I was a kid and even so my mom was STILL buying those ice-glazed chicken breasts at Sam’s Club in bulk because it was the best option for us, especially given our family’s medical food needs.

Unlike some companies that have outright admitted their business model is built on gentrification, I think we need to radically change how we look at food and how it is available to people. We cannot make a sustainable system unless everyone is able to benefit from it.  We can’t feed everyone if my generation doesn’t farm because they can’t make ends meet doing it.  We can’t feed everyone if food prices exclude most people from buying what they need.  We can’t feed everyone if people with food-related disabilities are perpetually excluded from policy, support networks, and the national conversation.  For food to be ACTUALLY SUSTAINABLE it needs to be accessible to EVERYONE. It needs to be inclusive and value the labor and effort of people involved.

I’m not sure how we will get there. But I’ll be damned if I’m not going to do my best to make it happen. 

I stand by all of this 100%. We are headed toward a crisis.  I will not stand idly by. 

@crystallinecrow @vaspider 

YES YES YES YES. So one of the big things I like to teach people is about time economy. 

I will say, you can eat healthy with a moderate to low budget, but it takes a VERY specialized skill set and low time economy. That is, more expendable time that can be spent learning skills necessary to sustaining this diet, such as food preparation, planning, preservation and enacting it. People literally do not have time for this. It’s a huge privilege to be able to do this. MASSIVE PRIVILEGE. 

Also one of the biggest barriers that people have to food accessibility (outside of food deserts and access issues) is their time economy.  What people who complain about so-called “handouts” people receive in the form of federal food assistance don’t fucking understand is that if you think federal food assistance is a hand out, you have no concept of time economy. 

Every minute of a low-income individual’s time is worth a greater percentage of their overall income and net worth. If you don’t get paid a living wage you make less income, you have to work longer to make up for it.  You don’t have the time to prep bulk foods such as whole vegetables, or cooking and freezing foods, learning how to cook inexpensively and healthily. That is loss of net time. It’s a horrendous system that literally keeps people in poverty. 

There is also a huge gaping void of knowledge gap. This is where my program comes in. We teach these skills, and try to help our participate leverage the most of the resources available to them. A lot of people who are living this life have had a sustained lack of access to education that is more readily available to non-low income folks. 

If people complain about people getting federal food assistance around me I want to punch them in the face. People do not receive any where near enough to actually survive. They get a MEAGER AMOUNT. It damn fucking helps, but it’s not enough. 

Also bonus bonus let us not discuss how EVERY DOLLAR OF FEDERAL FOOD ASSISTANCE SPENT GENERATES MORE MARKET REVENUE THAN IT’S ACTUAL VALUE. IT’S GOOD FOR THE ECONOMY GUYS. 

Our food system is so fucked up. MAN. 

deadcatwithaflamethrower:

sanerontheinside:

ami-angelwings:

medievalpoc:

doublehamburgerjack:

frantzfandom:

deux-zero-deux:

wtf-fun-factss:

Traces of coca and nicotine found in Egyptian mummies – WTF fun facts

well DUH. a lot of historians are still trying to process the fact that ancient egyptians knew how to build boats, which is ridiculous. why would they not be seafarers and explorers?

this is not new or surprising information at all. it pretty much day one of any african-american studies course.

the egyptians knew that if they put their boats in front of the summer storm winds it’d blow them right across the sea to the Americas and they shared that with the greeks.

It’s really hard for people to understand that everyone had boats, exploration, and trade interactions without the same level of murder, colonization, and violence that the Europeans did. It’s really hard for people to get that.

An 11,000 year old Iroqious boat.

A whole book about Ancient Egyptian Maritime technology and culture.

Scientists “shocked” to discover that humanity casually traveled the seas over 100,000 years ago.

The Sea-Craft of Prehistory (book; Eurocentric as heck)

Humans traveling long distances by sea and deep=sea fishing for c. 42,000 years

The Dufuna Canoe, Africa’s oldest surviving boat, is 8,000 years old (Nigeria)

A fleet of 5,000-year-old boats in Abydos, Egypt

7,000-year-old seaworthy vessels in Kuwait

7,500-year-old boat found in China’s Zhejiang Province.

Scientific Evidence for Pre-Columbian Transoceanic Voyages (273 pages-for the hardcore only!):

The only plausible explanation for these findings is that a considerable number of transoceanic voyages in both directions across both major oceans were completed between the 7th millennium BC and the European age of discovery. Our growing knowledge of early maritime technology and its accomplishments gives us confidence that vessels and nautical skills capable of these long-distance travels were developed by the times indicated. These voyages put a new complexion on the extensive Old World/New World cultural parallels that have long been controversial.

This is important for the knowledge/history aspect, but also because of what was said above, that exploration/seafaring/technological advancement does not automatically mean conquest, colonization, and genocide.  It’s one of those myths that an annoyingly large amount of people pass around to justify white supremacy: that everybody wants to conquer and wipe out everybody else, and that white people just got the technology and exploration level up first to do it.  They like this myth for several reasons: 1) it frames genocide, slavery, conquest, etc, as natural results of human development, SOMEBODY would have eventually done it regardless 2) it frames evil acts as “human nature”, it implies that the victims of those acts would have done them if they could, and that the people doing it were only acting on “nature” 3) it implies that because white people did these things therefore white people must have had the highest technological level and 4) because white people had the highest technological level therefore white people deserved their place in the world as conquerers and colonizers and enslavers.

Of course none of this is true, but it’s something our society likes to believe and the narrative is distributed through “common knowledge” and through our media, where non-white cultures in “historical” dramas are framed as “primitive” or warlike or both, and all the various dystopia fiction where “the oppressed become the oppressors” and what not (i.e. everybody wants to conquer everybody else, so SOMEBODY has to be on top).

@deadcatwithaflamethrower, this had your name on it

Research and nerdism, baby.

phoenix-falls:

augustinesycamore:

white people are racist by default (in the united states as well as other countries). are you white? congrats, you’re racist, and here’s the explanation:

you grew up in a racist society -> you were socialized to be racist thanks to racism being a dominant ideology -> you benefit from racism -> you’re racist no matter how much u think you’re not.

unlearning it is going to be a constant battle and u will never unlearn it fully. accept this. it is ingrained in you as a result of your upbringing and the media you’ve consumed. the sooner you come to terms with your own racism, the sooner u can better yourself. recognize the problem in yourself instead of setting yourself apart from those “other” white people.

I fux heavy with the White people who keep putting this post on my dash

beowulf22121:

dannielle:

julianunes:

lowoncliches:

bankuei:

meagan-hood:

kyidyl:

why-bless-your-heart:

HOSPITALS. ARE. ALREADY. REQUIRED. UNDER. LAW. TO. PROVIDE. LIFE. SAVING. EMERGENCY. CARE. REGARDLESS. OF. ABILITY. TO. PAY. OR. EVEN. CITIZENSHIP.

Stop acting like Americans have no access to emergency healthcare unless we socialize medicine.

IF. YOU. GO. AND. CAN’T. PAY. YOU’RE. STILL. THOUSANDS. IN. DEBT. THIS. IS. NOT. ACCESS.

This hospital in my city just threw out a homeless man

The hospital which took me in after I collapsed from the fist sized tumor over my heart, released me after refusing to diagnose it as cancer, which would have forced them to give me some kind of treatment. The doctor at the county hospital which took me in looked at their tests and said, “this is CLEARLY cancer, why didn’t they diagnose it? We can’t let you leave.”

Hospitals find ways when they want to, to avoid helping people when they want to.

“Oh that’s illegal, you should sue” “ with what money and how will I get the time and energy when I’m busy recovering from chemo?”

People who can’t afford treatment also can’t afford to protect their rights.

Absolutely this: “People who can’t afford treatment also can’t afford to protect their rights.”

“People who can’t afford treatment also can’t afford to protect their rights.”

let it sink in “People who can’t afford treatment also can’t afford to protect their rights.”

As much as I would love to copy paste the bold bit above, I wanna rant.

Yes, they legally have to give life saving care.

If your injury/illness/demonic-possession/whatever isn’t going to kill you soon?

It’s not life threatening.

Once they stabilize you?

It’s not life threatening.

Once they’ve stitched you up and put half a dose of antibacterial cream on your three inch deep slash across your torso?

Not life threatening.

There’s an alley in LA where ambulances go to dump people who are “done” being cared for.
A family was a half hour late picking grandpa up from a long stay.
Guess where they had to go to pick him up?

kosmonauttihai:

rollerskatinglizard:

ceekari:

stayhungry-stayfree:

This is a really helpful page in my CBT textbook for tackling some of the maladaptive beliefs we often hold. The first column lists the rules and assumptions we often may tell ourselves, while the second column is a more functional belief. Just thought I would pass this along. Be kind to yourselves, friends❤

Oh my god, number 5. And 6, and 7.

I frigging needed that.

Failure is not a permanent condition.

The text on the image:

  1. Maladaptive belief: 

    If I don’t do as well as others, I’m a failure.
    More functional belief:

    If I don’t do as well as others, I’m not a failure, just human.

  2. Maladaptive belief:  If I ask for help, it’s a sign of weakness.
    More functional belief: If I ask for help when I need it, I’m showing good problem-solving abilities (which is a sign of strength).
  3. Maladaptive belief:  If I fail at work/school, I’m a failure as a person.
    More functional belief:

    If I fail at work/school, it’s not a reflection of my whole self. (My whole self includes how I am as a friend, daughter, sister, relative, citizen, and community member, and my qualities of kindness, sensitivity to others, helpfulness, etc.) Also, failure is not a permanent condition.

  4. Maladaptive belief:  I should be able to excel at everything I try.
    More functional belief: I shouldn’t be able to excel at something unless I am gifted in that area (and am willing and able to devote considerable time and effort toward it at the expense of other things.
  5. Maladaptive belief:  I should always work hard and do my best.
    More functional belief: I should put in a reasonable amount of effort much of the time.
  6. Maladaptive belief:  If I don’t live up to my potential, I have failed.
    More functional belief: If I do less than my best, I have succeeded perhaps 70%, 80%, or 90%; not 0%.
  7. Maladaptive belief:  If I don’t work hard all the time, I’ll fail.
    More functional belief:

    If I don’t work hard all the time, I’ll probably do reasonably well and have a more balanced life.

leproblematique:

fierceawakening:

dysphoria-privilege:

sullengirlalmlghty:

tockthewatchdog:

tockthewatchdog:

not to be a bitter asshole but the overwhelming “my gf is perfect and relationships between women are are all pure and perfect” culture on here is annoying. there are a lot of us out here being used, cheated on, dumped, abused, having communication issues and shitty breakups, and lesbian culture is not a binary of “im alone and pining after an imaginary perfect gf” or “i have a perfect gf”. it does baby lesbians and bi women a disservice. don’t feel like there’s something wrong with you if you have bad dates or weird dates or women treat you like shit or trespass your boundaries and in general don’t act like perfect magical moon princesses and your relationship isn’t a magical dream of cat ownership and cuddling. women are people too, and that means women are flawed too. there are wonderful women out there and you will find one someday to build your life with but there are a lot of assholes out there too, you’re not failing at anything if you date one of them. and you have the capability of being a shitty asshole too!

Boy there’s a lot of defensive creeps on this post!

“I’m a lesbian in a perfect relationship and I would never downplay that so that other lesbians aren’t jealous that’s ridiculous“

jesus, yeah this is definitely about jealousy not lesbians and bi women in toxic or straight up abusive relationships feeling isolated and wanting to change that!

A key reason why some believe LGBTQ IPV to be rare may be due to an assumption that LGBTQ people are inherently nonviolent. This may be particularly the case for sexual minority women. In contrast to the aggression often associated with culturally prominent masculinity norms, many lesbian women are socialized to perceive relationships involving two women as a peaceful and ideal “lesbian utopia.” Unfortunately, this powerful stereotype can impede lesbian female victims’ ability to recognize that a partner’s behavior is in fact abusive rather than normal.26 For example, in reflecting on her same-gender IPV victimization back in the 1990s, Julie describes the ubiquity of the lesbian utopia ideal in the United Kingdom that prevented her from discussing the abuse with anyone: “Well it was during a period where everyone was just raving about erm how brilliant woman-to-woman relationships were and also I don’t think anyone believed that one woman could do that to another woman—there was just no, no sense of reality around that at all. There was sort of a political euphoria about lesbianism at the time; well not even lesbianism, just woman-to-woman relationships.”27 Echoing these sentiments, a victim of female same-gender IPV in the United States explains the powerful influence the lesbian utopia ideal had on her ability to recognize the abuse: “No—I thought, well, I just thought that it was fine because we were girls, like, and girls don’t hurt each other like that. So I just thought that it was the way it was supposed to be.”28

LGBTQ Intimate Partner Violence: Lessons for Policy, Practice, and Research by Adam M. Messinger

An example of what can happen when a group of people are glorified

This is exactly how I got into an emotionally abusive relationship. My other bi friends had told me “relationships with women are better because there aren’t power dynamics like there are between women and men.”

I doublethought (doublethunk?) my way back to “this isn’t a power dynamic” every time I felt demeaned and afraid, because “there are no power dynamics between women,” so I couldn’t have been living one.

Lesbianism-as-purity stuff terrifies me now, y’all.

I’ve spoken about this before. One of the advantages of hands-on, community-building LGBTQIAP+ activism is that I had the opportunity to talk directly to hundreds of people and counsel them on a whole variety of concrete issues. By far the thorniest problem I was faced with was intimate partner violence within relationships between women. Many abused women came to me in emotionally fragile states, yet adamantly refused to do anything more than talk with me in confidence – such as speak to one of our official counselors or to a support group, never bloody mind even the idea of filing any kind of charges against their girlfriends! 

Within the community, they were taught the idea that same-gender relationships between women were not only inherently ‘better’ and had ‘less capacity for containing abuse’ than other kinds of relationships (particularly straight ones), but that ‘airing their dirty laundry in public’ (talking publicly about their abuse) would be a damaging act toward the LGBTQIAP+ community as a whole, as it would give homophobes more dirt to fling in our direction. Given my disgust toward everything related toward purity politics and respectability politics, you can imagine what my stance toward the above is – I value truth, transparency and not throwing domestic abuse survivors under the fucking bus a hell of a lot more than I value us presenting a sanitized, artificially clean image to the world, when we should all know by now that our most irrational detractors would continue to hate us even if we were the human incarnations of purity! There’s a subset of people you just cannot win over and I’d rather have them crow like broken records about the problems within the community, rather than glossing over said problems and doing a hell of a lot of damage to young queer people in the process!  

Before anyone starts screaming – the takeaway people should be taking from this isn’t ‘so now I can’t talk about my perfect WLW relationship?’ or ‘you people want to trash the image of lesbians!’ or other barmy shit like that. No, the message is ‘same-sex relationships between women fall on a scale that’s much more complex than ‘shades of soft, pastel-pink’, the way Tumblr all too often presents them.’ Queer women are people. Queer women are humans and as such, we’re as fallible and mistake-prone as anyone else on this Earth, no matter how much we might pretend that we’re some sort of ‘evolved form of person.’ We’re not exempt from perpetuating toxic, abusive models within our relationships and trying to ignore that does us all an enormous disservice.