eos_nyxia

I like to think about things that many people see as small things and deconstruct them and analyze them. Small issues usually relate directly to bigger issues somehow. I also like to think about society in general, which is in a way always open-ended. Always becoming and transforming. I like to try to understand these things. And as mentioned above, a lot of my emotion does actually follow my "logic" first, and not vice versa, so I need to have some sort of clear logical understanding, perspective, or praxis governing my emotions and behaviour. I'm under the understanding that this is actually quite alien to quite a few people. Yea, I know that? This is about complimenting men more in situations that I would like to remain platonic. I've lost a good handful or two of male friendships for this reason over the years (some of them were very good ones IMO), and I think I've had one where we stayed friends but we aren't particularly close anymore anyway. I would like to avoid situations like these if possible. This isn't about my needs; I know how to not compliment everyone on the street, lol. This is at least partially about men complaining (or feeling wistful) that they don't get compliments from the opposite sex more. I myself was just wondering about myself, coming from the opposite side of the equation. What could I potentially do to meet some collective, unmet need? So it has to be this way because it's been this way since time immemorial? I guess if that's truly the case, no compliments for anyone then! Seriously though.... people complain that modern urban society is cold, insular, and unempathetic, I am legitimately trying to figure out how to be kinder and less.... cold, insular, and unempathetic. Lol............

Yea, I think you're right about everything that you've said.

To a degree, being around people is a chore for me, unless they really feel like "my people" (or "my person", in the case of my husband). There has been a high degree of social masking involved throughout my whole life, since early childhood. It IS draining and unnatural for me. It's likely related to this issue, but is also a whole other can of worms in and of itself. I actually do sympathize a great deal with men who feel like they have to learn social skills and inference from scratch, because in many ways I have been doing the same thing, though probably I started when I was much younger. Basically: 1) observe 2) take action 3) see how people react 4) observe 5) draw conclusions 6) rinse and repeat steps 1-5 7) assess conclusions again Basically, a lot of everything that I do socially is done manually or deliberately, and sometimes that involves a lot more rumination than is really technically necessary. (Or you could say "consciously", but I don't put my own behaviour on a pedestal here, it's just my defacto state.) A lot doesn't come automatically or impulsively, especially the older I get. This isn't about my husband or my relationship with him, actually. There is no anxiety there. There is a highway of compliments going both ways, but I actually learned a lot about how to be much freer with compliments from him, based on the way that he treated me. I didn't grow up with compliments or positive affirmation, and it's really hard to model what you don't know. However, I do actually have the desire to spontaneously compliment positively. I used to work in education with youth for a time, I was very free with my compliments. It wasn't natural to me though (see above), but I learned. Sometimes it's been like I've wanted to say something complimentary so bad, but it always seems so WRONG, either what I say, or how it comes out. At times in my life I've been quite isolated, and that hasn't helped at all with the hyperconsciousness thing. The original post is moreso about dealing with and meeting new people, having friendships with the opposite sex, making sense of ambiguous expectations, etc. I like to minimize problems. So much so, that I think about problems that don't technically exist yet (but probably will, lol). The other thoughts are just things I thought were worth talking about, as a social issue. Aka. why can't cishet men get more compliments if they need/ want them? I don't think it's a bad sentiment to want to meet people where they are, and help the collective needs of society be met somehow, do you? I'm not of the mind of people automatically understanding and hitting it off with me and then having excellent, effortless relationships all the time without some sort of "effort" or "work" on my part anymore TBH. And also just expecting it to go somewhere, and then actually have it go somewhere according to my expectations/ ideals. Also, isn't it worth learning to get along with people and understand them, for everyone's greatest good?

I might just start saying "no homo" after every compliment I give to the opposite sex now.

This Bharatanatyam dancer. I feel that this is a much more bold and fierce style than you would normally see: I admire her strength, grace, and general athleticism.

@LSD-Rumi Nice, thanks! I did think that the aesthetic (in both style and content) did look very distinctly Persian. It's nice to see a variety of sources from around the world.

A lot of people would disagree with you. But still, "smaller" issues that people face are still issues to be dealt with. ....you seem to have a habit of reductionistic thinking, as in, making complex issues extremely simplistic in questionably appropriate ways. You and mostly everyone else, it seems. I admit that I'm not that interested in what would support the either decaying or due-for-serious-upheaval social infrastructures of one country or another, or one continent or another. Nor am I that knowledgeable about the best practical ways to adapt social infrastructure so that we don't fall apart into unnecessary chaos and conflict. IMO short-term sacrifices are necessary for long-term gain though. Mostly I'm interested in what would make this world a more beautiful, harmonious place to live for every single human being that lives here, for the animals that live here... where we can have both spirituality and advanced technology in a state of environmental balance. I'm mostly interested in the big-big picture, or the extremely long-term picture. A world where we seriously prioritize having MORE PEOPLE! isn't a world that I would enjoy living in, personally. I also hate being in giant, crowded cities, regardless of environmental impact. I'm talking about the spiritual, subtle qualities of this experience. Big surprise, right? Personally, I really do not understand humanity's fixation on the "quantity" of human experience, rather than sheer quality first. It's like people took the "be fruitful and multiply" sentiment (which is "natural" enough, I guess) from an era where there were far, far less people without global environmental concerns, and their deeper-value system is prioritizing replicating their particular cultural ethos and bloodline first and foremost above all else. I don't care about this. And if you reproduce knowing how precarious the future is (or could be) without thinking about it carefully, you're either very driven by animalistic impulses and have made that your life ethos, you're very susceptible to cultural indoctrination, or perhaps you just have a bunch of screws loose? Admittedly, if I had it my way, humanity's population would cap off around 1-2 billion, maybe 3 billion at the absolute tops. I know this is probably considered an extremely radical perspective amongst the general populace (?), but I'm of the general awareness that quite a few environmental scientists agree with me, and may not be considered that radical in that field. And again with the fixation on the sheer quantity and masses of humanity: just because you can choose to max out Earth's carrying capacity, it doesn't mean that you should! Like say you're having a party, will you have a better party by shoving more and more people within a very limited amount of space, without considering the aesthetics and dynamics of the space itself?? For some people: I guess a busy party is always a better party? For me: this is a headache. I don't discriminate at all based on culture or poverty levels (though I think deliberately bringing children into urban poverty is asking for a lot of problems on both a social and environmental level). I think everyone should have either less or no children. People in very poor, rural eras with extremely limited access to modern technology have a significantly lower carbon footprint, no? TBH I don't exactly agree with environmentalists and environmentally inclined people on everything though, mostly based on sheer, raw intuition. For instance: I'm not as concerned with global warming as many people are. I consider it to be par-the-course, a point that we are reaching sooner rather than a bit later, though done in a very haphazard way.

Oh... you mean, when will they communicate physically, to our faces? You mean something "benevolent", right? Probably when our beingness is as still as the dead of night. We are much too loud, too unsubtle and unperceptive, too conflicted, and turning our energies every which way in haphazard, unholistic ways. Arguably for no known greater, actual existing cause for the most part. There is a certain lack of directness, understanding, openness, and actual clarity across the board. A sort of base level of "matching" must occur in order for there to be a... match. It's the simple universal law of communication/ communion (or having matching "on par" enough vibrations, as the New Age calls it). Even if there is a means to override this, most harmonious beings and species do not prefer to communicate in inharmonious ways. Which is why merging with the "law of least resistance" (even if eventually and not right away) is a sort of spiritual principle as well. This is moreso my conjecture from observing watcher-types: have you ever just observed people who are homeless, who might possibly have a condition such as untreated schizophrenia? Have you ever tried to communicate with such a person, or watched another person try to communicate with them, and observed the ways in which they very much appear "not here" or "somewhere that is clearly elsewhere", as if drawn up in some other, unseen conflict in some otherwise unseen world, as if collapsing upon themselves onto perpetual sharp edges? Would you want to get too close to this, would this serve any real purpose? How do you truly communicate with someone who knows nothing except how to have ongoing arguments with themselves? Would you want to stand right in front of someone who is flailing around erratically, screaming, with a knife in your face? Would you enjoy this? Would it give off acceptable vibes? Would it feel "safe" or proper? Wouldn't this screaming still hurt your ears even if you don't take it personally or become reactive? Is this actually to anyone's actual highest good? Great, now imagine a giant room full of people like this. The way of the "enlightened universe" is generally non-interference, and letting life live itself and figure itself out, and letting "karma" and nature take its course (within reason). If you cannot be open as you are, you stay in the shadows. That is the path of greatest harmony/ the least resistance anyway. Beyond this, there is the issue of the biological compatibility of their "energy" in our body and what this would do to us psychologically and psychologically, and sometimes vice versa as well.

To communicate? If and when we are hollow like glass stones. Void, open, and receptive. What reaches you when you are not this way tends to be... not so great, if anything reaches you at all. Also, the more bogged down and attached to various constructs you are, the harder it is to assess the quality of anything received, it seems. The whole process of having non-discreet identities, thought and emotional dramas, psychological fixations, and being overly attached to human culture and ways of doing things isn't particularly helpful either. It really doesn't help that human culture and collective priorities are not very compatible ATM and have not been for most of written human history. Either these are bypassed in some way, or you minimize it and do things properly in clear, open consciousness. Being able to communicate through sheer "beingness" rather than "trying" (or the forceful, pointed nature of having and directing thoughts and emotions) is a big part of it. Alot of beings either cannot or will not participate in this sort of "beingness matrice" (for a lack of a better term...).

@LSD-Rumi Artist/ painting names?

My dude, there has always been direct access to the collective consciousness. But is it generally not treated as a precision art form/ science/ whatever. Most people just go the dream/ daydreaming route, or rely on seemingly random bouts of inspiration.

There is only so much you can do with -isms as a root framework of thinking, you know? I tend to think of it as a living relic of the 20th century/ "Western" modernistic thinking, though my time frame here might not be totally precise.

@Tenebroso It's not particularly healthy to make a whole universal philosophy out of your own traumas, you know? (Though it is healthy to protect yourself in a mindful way.) It's a bit too easy to switch around the genders in mostly everything that you wrote.

Pretty much no one lives in this kind of reality. It only appears that way from the outside, from a very safe distance.

There is a truth to this. There are always reasons why you can "think" your way for or against one thing or another, if you're really determined to do so. But at the same time... I'm really not a big fan of this "don't think, just breed, worry about problem later!!!" mentality that pro-birth people have. This is actually a social pressure that is put on women specifically, even if it's also put on men as well. But with women, it is more. It often involves permanent changes to our bodies, and still often enough involves a very uneven division of labour, both emotional and physical. There is our "window of fertility" which is an added pressure. This stuff matters. For the most part, no males are going off to war and getting themselves shot in Western countries anymore, not in WWI trenches or elsewhere, nor are they working in sewers, even as giving birth is not quite what it used to be with modern medical science at our disposal. Also: my mother grew up 3rd world poor, as in... at a starvation/subsistence level. I heard quite a bit about this growing up, even if I did not grow up in this way myself. Still, my link to it is closer than most people I've known who have been living in a first-world country for generations (with the exception of the indigenous people living here). It's probably not a great idea to assume what I do or don't take for granted considering this stuff was drilled into my head as a kid, thanks. For me, this is not about the morality of "comfort". It is about the morality of having children in an overpopulated and environmentally precarious world just because "it's what people do!" . (Again... apparently an extremely hot take, lol.) I don't see anyone shitting on people who truly, deeply want kids and are as prepared to be good parents as "reasonably" possible. Of course, some of us have much higher standards for what "reasonably prepared" is. This is not universally true. I can only assume that you have not had traumatic enough experiences with your own parents, caregivers, or siblings to have even conceived of feeling otherwise. I cannot conceive of someone being so unempathetic in this way otherwise. That you have not been profoundly abandoned or abused in any way by them. In that case... enjoy your privilege, I suppose? Like... what if you have a narc-like parent who habitually turns one sibling against the other? (Basically talking about my dad's case.) Tell this to all the people whose bond with their parents and siblings are broken and often unfixable, and who can't do anything but be alone (or perhaps hopefully with other non-family) on Christmases and Thanksgivings. What about those people? What about all the people who have been abused horribly by their family?

SHOEGAZE-Y (cont.) It's still been a Slowdive summer... I think this might be the best track of the three they've released so far... Man, I love everything about this. 2nd gen (?) shoegazy-ness:

"RANDOM FOLK": This song has been living rent-free in my head for the past couple of days. I can't remember if I actually heard this in a public place (like a mall), or if I heard it on a playlist, and then was reminded that this existed. Buffy Sainte-Marie might actually be the most well-known Cree woman worldwide, ever. Possibly the most anti-war song that ever anti-warred. So apparently there was a cover by Donovan which I think was more famous back in the day: Apparently, there is also a Finnish version of "Universal Soldier" by the dude above (Hector), which makes me think this song has probably been covered a lot. (Sometimes I go down the rabbit hole of covers.) Another one which I've been enjoying lately by Buffy Sainte-Marie:

@Swarnim It's pretty interesting to read about your positive experience of being an older brother. I know it's probably not uncommon at all, but it wasn't my experience, nor was it the experience of anyone that I was close with. The person who I knew who tried the hardest to be a positive influence in his younger sisters' lives, he was deeply conflicted about it. Himself, his whole family (emotionally and physically absent or unreliable father), etc. Probably just a "him thing" too.

@SeedI tend to be of the mind that if you are uncertain and what you have right now is GOOD, you probably just shouldn't. Appreciate what you have and either let go of those "what ifs", or perhaps time will do that naturally for you. Perhaps it is true that I have read and heard too many regret stories to be optimistic though. If you have enough right now, and if you're going to struggle financially and emotionally with more than one, then you probably shouldn't. If your body is going to struggle with the effects and results of birth (due to a previous traumatic birth and possibly age), and also you won't be prepared to deal with a child with developmental disabilities (let's be real, how many people actually are??), you also probably shouldn't. (Probably an unpopular opinion though.) If you're worried about your relationship being overwhelmed or thrown off balance, particularly if there already has been an asymmetrical division of labour and energy (like you're way more burnt out than your husband), then I personally definitely would not. It just seems like a recipe for more burnout and resentment. With the other questions, it's hard to say for sure though, obviously. Unfortunately, it seems like the "regret" stories are often blotted out by people who are pro-having-children because it IS still taboo enough, even though it would help prospective parents make a better-informed decision. Personally, I'm childfree, so I am biased. I would say: always pick self-actualization through yourself and the people who are here (as opposed to someone else who isn't even born yet) and living your life over motherhood, especially if you're on-the-fence. There is always the option to nurture non-biological children, animals, etc.... There is SO MUCH that the world as it is already needs. (But in your case, you don't have to choose, you are already blessed with a "good" experience of motherhood.)

You know, I've never actually heard anyone say anything positive about being stuck with parental duties as a child. Not anecdotally from personal experience, and not in the field of psychological studies (where they call this "parentification"). I'm sure that there is a big difference between giving a few minor responsibilities in a structured way, and expecting a 6-10+-year-old girl to feed, clothe, bathe, educate, and nurture their siblings, and stopping them from accidentally harming themselves, as well as just generally not being a bad influence. (This was my brother's ex-wife. Add to this list: ward off the effects of alcoholic and otherwise irresponsible or extremely busy and absent caregivers.) And traditionally, this load was only expected and dumped on female children, no? A large, usually poor traditional household with a lot of responsibilities often relied on the labour of female children otherwise they would not have been functional (for example, rural farm households). Although in general, children had adult responsibilities and were thought of as adults at much younger ages. Around my great grandparents' ages (like during the Great Depression), kids were working in factories to support their families, foraging for food or working with machinery on farms at the ages of 11-13 old, smoking and drinking like adults, and in some cases, boys were responsible enough to be thought of "the man of the house" around this age. It was a completely different era, but it seems to have had a strong effect on both my grandparents' and father's era in terms of what was thought of as acceptable childhood responsibilities. After all, the concept of "teenager" didn't exist in the early 20th century. We also used to hardcore condition (basically indoctrinate) little girls into motherhood-as-primary-life-purpose too on top of whatever they would have been inclined to do naturally, with giving them baby dolls, societal values, etc. Just based on my reading and observation of people's experiences, the parentification issue is a common enough reason why women choose to be childfree, either because they staunchly do not want them (the sentiment is: "I was forced to be a mother at a young age, no way I'm going to choose to do that now"). Or they would otherwise want kids, but they're completely burnt out from mothering and just generally taking emotional and physical responsibility for other people their whole lives. Too much of this wrecks people's mental health as adults. Conversely, I've never personally met an only child who was mad about it. My mom: happy to be an only child, because she got all of the attention and the very limited resources her parents had, and had no sibling responsibilities. My husband: not technically an only child, but had a much older half-brother who was completely out of the picture, so was raised as an only child. Had no issue with it. Just off the top of my head. If kids get lonely.. don't they just make friends? At least you get to choose your own friends? There's no real guarantee that siblings will like each other and have compatible personalities, either as children or adults... Like my dad: has a lot of siblings. They do not all get along. Not as children and not as adults. This concern about sibling loneliness, it seems to primarily be a parental concern, is it not? (Someone feel free to correct me with counterexamples, I am actually curious.)

In any time period, I suspect that there were always women who preferred sex work to the preapproved life path of marriage, monogamy, and children, even despite the risk and the likelihood of encountering extremely unpleasant people, coercion, and societal judgment. For some people, there is no real joy or meaning to be found in the standard issue female life path, period. For some, this is torture. Like slavery. I can also understand why some women might choose sex work over working some shitty job, potentially burning yourself out, and also having nothing materially to show for it in the end. What's the reward for that, assuming that you're actually, truly ok with sex work? Wow, society thinks you're bare minimum ok and doesn't judge you. Great prize there. You can make a lot of money quickly (especially with escorting), save it all up and set yourself up for life, and potentially end up working in some other career if you wanted to, no? Or even perhaps retire early. Likewise, the possibility of ending up in an apartment full of cats is like... a non-existent threat for some of us. For some people, that's literally ideal, lol. People are different, why is this surprising? (....not that in this day and age, you actually always have to pick one or the other. Porn stars, escorts, and other sex workers do marry and have kids, you know.)

I also really never understood this perspective that even "inexperienced" women (at least in terms of body count) inherently prefer experienced men, but then, I actually don't know how much of an anomaly I am either. My natural disposition is that I tend to be pretty neutral about it, and "inexperienced" very much has its own appeal with the male gender. But... the vibe and context behind one's experiences (and the lack of it) is all-important IMO. Is someone bitter because they haven't had the experiences they wanted in life? That... tends not to get better with age. Is someone getting "weirder" and more out of touch with being around people in a romantic/ sexual way, as a result of being alone? This also tends not to get better with more time. Is someone chronically in very long-term relationships, or were they in a few interspersed with periods of being single, and why? Sometimes people are addicted to not being alone, and this often comes with its own set of comorbid issues. Or there are certain reasons why all of their relationships have a certain lifespan (or why their relationships get stretched out endlessly into oblivion). If anything, at this point, when facing the prospect of dating within the last 5ish years, the idea of getting overly attached to someone with a drastically different dating/ sexual background is more daunting the older I get. It's certainly not a plus. As a result, I've tended to attract and be most attracted to people with a similar background, and cautious and wary around the opposite. So: men who have had a lot of sexual and romantic experience, men who have dated around a lot, men who have roving eyeballs (and act on their impulses) definitely have not been more attractive, whereas it was more of a neutral factor before (not the roving eyeballs thing though). You can think of this as the conservative, self-preservation streak in action. While I could have gone either way in the past based on my own natural disposition, the experienced tend to be more assertive, extroverted, and approach more (not just in a romantic/ sexual way, but tending to be more forward with all people who are of interest for whatever reason). Otherwise, who is going to approach them? Sometimes it would actually be me. None of this has much to do with men with a different background being "bad", as in, I don't feel the need to moralize about my life choices in this way to feel better and more secure about myself and for the world that I live in to appear more orderly and make sense, lol. The cage that makes you feel contained and that gives you a ground to rest upon in an open void, is the same thing that becomes hard to leave later, assuming that you want to leave. This is what ideology tends to do. It makes you a slave while convincing you that you're the master still. If you were at one point, you're probably not anymore. If you were, you would just drop it all instantly the moment it became clear that it wasn't serving you, and that it was no longer actually protecting you or making you happy.

As a woman with a "low body count", I wouldn't have dated someone who was overly preoccupied with it for its own sake, who fetishized it, or thought it meant something that it really didn't (from my perspective). For example, if he assumed that we shared some kind of morality that we don't share (e.g. morally conservative sexuality, especially if just for women but not for men, lol). Hard pass because we actually have nothing in common. IMO it's really important to look at the actual motivations and circumstances behind a certain behaviour, rather than just looking at the superficial result and assuming the motivation because >>insert cultural ideology<<. Don't assume that cultural patterns are the actuality until you can be very, highly certain that they are the cause. However, this requires that you not default to ideology because it's convenient, it makes you feel more secure, and saves mental time and energy. In my own case, my own motivations had a lot to do with: meeting someone who I shared a great deal in common with at a very young age, which was possible because I had a very centered, acute sense of Self and motive, and so did he the huge amount of time and energy I've spent resolving and making sense of early life trauma and finding it unwise to add more baggage in the form of extra experiences to the mix. (which not so coincidentally, usually makes me "damaged goods" by definition to males who think that a "low body count" is a promise of some sort of cleaner slate) the yogic perspective of limiting and minimizing accumulated body memory, which not only helps you in the process of dissolving previous body memory and association, but it actually can be extremely helpful (if not necessary) for specific goals related to energetic/ spiritual and intellectual development that require a huge amount energy and focus in a singular, novel direction. (But done blindly and dogmatically, ascetic tendencies and self-restraint can also be rather useless as well.) It has had very little to do with being a "good girl" and being good in the eyes of sexually conservative men, which is a losing game anyway. It's kind of like... when I was a young woman, I wouldn't have dated someone who was overly preoccupied with my age either. (Aka. older men who are chronically fixated on younger women.) I always thought the reason for this should be obvious: you'll be on the losing end of this sooner rather than later. You're not ever really "winning". And it has nothing to do with you personally anyway. You're just a series of interchangeable parts, or a checklist, for people who think this way, whether you "win" or "lose". So basically, it's all "losing". No one likes being treated this way, unless they themselves are treating others this way first (presumably to protect themselves or others like them)!

Not gonna lie, I used to be moderately jealous of those people. Yea. If you're mind heavy, it's healthy to be able to put all that stuff aside for a while, and to just get into your body and feeling in some way, but to not keep these functions all segregated. Or at the very least, keep the thinking rather goal-orientated and under wraps. Not a chronic thing. Honestly, "understanding" is pretty optional. Some people manage to skip this preoccupation properly and their life is way easier, and possibly happier as a result. Understanding can bring great pleasure but it very often doesn't, lol.

The addiction to polarization as a form of spectacle (and often on some level, entertainment) often reveals that there is not much underneath it at all. This is a worldwide thing (especially when it comes to the news and politics), but it seems to also very much be a North American thing too? It is a placeholder for one's time and energy, even while people believe that they are truly somehow dealing with "the real issues" in some productive way. That's at least a large part of it. If there are new issues to be polarized about, and one issue dies down as a point of central focus, but then another focus comes up, and then another, then it is an indications that polarization is functioning as an addiction to filling the void of one's focus. Not all polarization is gratuitous though. The question is if it's being used judiciously, is it actually effective, and is it needlessly self-indulgent? (In terms of causing yourself and others chronic suffering and distraction with no actual end in sight for anyone.) Sometimes people need to scream in public, for far longer than other people think is reasonable or necessary, in order to heal and reintegrate themselves (or specific aspects of themselves) into society. It's often a quicker way to deal with said issues rather than keeping it all to themselves in perfectly polite, civilized and acceptable ways, much to the inconvenience of people who would rather not listen to your screaming, or only listen as ammo for forming their own judgments about your self-worth, or specifically their intrinsic value in relation to your intrinsic value (with you always being on the losing end, rather predictably). They also often have specific goals in mind for social change. Is this necessarily the most effective way to facilitate social change? Very rarely is it, but sometimes a hammer and bludgeoning does get the job done. However, just as a counterexample to polarization: I often feel like here in Canada (and possibly in the States as well), Indigenous people are far too polite about their traumas (on average). Even their protests strike me as too polite and reserved. Maybe they should be using their words like sharper, more calculated weapons, as in, it would force people to listen better... but it is not their way. It is also not very appropriate to speak over people and to dictate to them how they should deal with their traumas in order to be acceptable to YOU, especially on their behalf, lol. That's just being part of the problem. Also realistically, it often takes at least a couple of generations for intergenerational trauma to start to substantially dissolve collectively (or to at least get enough psychological distance from the original trauma) to cause psychological unraveling and resolution, especially if the issue was widespread and systematic on a cultural level. Often, there is a deeply fatalistic acceptance and profound grit that comes from being too close to the source of the trauma, experientially and at the level of identity that comes from this direct experience, assuming that they get to this point. (For example, being a genocide survivor, or a Residential School survivor in the case of Indigenous people here, or 2nd gen.) I have noticed that this is often where the "integration" process ends for people, But give credit where it is due, this is a massive achievement on a personal level. At least, this is how it has been in the past 100-150 years or so. I'd like to think this process can finally accelerate now, and we can support each other better in this process. Me too.