#male bullshit stories

[lebensmudewing]

I will save your time, you don't have to play the devil's advocate anymore. I inform you that such loneliness crisis doesn't exists at all 😊

Maybe if men didn’t think talking to their male friends about their personal lives and feelings was gay they wouldn’t be having such a loneliness crisis.

I saw a tweet the other day from either the “sex worker” herself or the man idk. Saying that he just pays her to talk to him/ let him cry or express emotions or some shit. That’s just pathetic. It’s antisocial and pathetic.

I had a male friend tell me that he has different friendships with females than males, and him and his male friends don’t talk about deep stuff or something.

Literally if I was to play the devils advocate, I’d say “learn to express emotions and share your feelings with your male friends” but deep down they’re not lonely. Not lonely enough to seek emotional connection with their male friends. They just want to wallow and complain because they bored of they hand and feel entitled to sex.

[lebensmudewing]

Why "male loneliness epidemic" is a male supremacy psyop

I said in a former post that the "male loneliness epidemic" is not real and is a male supremacy psyop, and I want to explain more broadly why it is.

Manosphere

If you don't know about it yet, there is a thing called "Manosphere", a name that stands for a group of communities created by men and oriented towards men. Manosphere is composed by incels, redpill, blackpill, MGTOW and MRA ideologies.

Incels are "involuntarily celibates", men who want to date but can't do it. The term was created by a woman called Alana (invcel) and mostly refered to people who felt isolated and incapable of forming romantic relationships or trapped on a dying relationship.

Redpill stems from the Matrix scene where Neo has to choose between the redpill and the bluepill, being the redpill the one who will awaken him. The whole ideology started to take its form in pick up artistry forums such as SoSuave, and states that in order to mate and get laid a lot you have to become a "high value male", while also understand "female nature". The original big three exponents of these ideology were Rollo Tomassi, Chateau Heartiste and Roosh V, but nowadays only Rollo remains moderately relevant.

Blackpill is the most pessimistic and nihilistic version of the redpill, it is tied to incels but is not exclusive of them. It focuses on biological determinism, and states that the most important thing on mating is looks.

MGTOW started as an independent community, with a first manifesto written in 2001 in a male forum. In the manifesto they advocated in favor of a society with enforced gender roles and a smaller state. But nowadays they are connected to redpill and blackpill. It is mostly overlooked, but in spanish communities there are also two other manifests, MGTOW 2.0 and MGTOW 3.0. I don't know if there is a fourth one, but both help to understand the transition MGTOW has made over the years and how manosphere ideologies have been adopted by this group.

MRA stands for Men's rights activism, also called Men's rights Movement (MRM). The father of the movement is Ernst Belfort, who wrote against women's rights and the "legal subjection" of men, in response to feminists and John Stuart Mill. Nowadays is also tied with redpill, given that prominent figures of the movement promote or believe in redpill ideology, such as Paul Elam or Karen Straughan.

In 2014, Cassie Jaye who was allegedly a feminist by that time, did a documentary on MRA called "The Redpill". It's not clear why she called it that way, but it is suspected that it was with the purpose of dragging more people on the redpill. It is also said that she received money from Theredpill subreddit. The documentary was international, since it reached both english and spanish audiences (I don't know much about other languages/countries). It exposes a lot of problems men face, such as dying in war, losing custodies and domestic violence, but never explains what MRAs do to help those men.

That term

Once you become familiar with all these communities, you start to see how they are all the same. They share the same stats, the same studies, the same terms, the same narratives. The only thing that changes is the label, if the members can or not to have sex with women, if the members want or not to have sex with women, and if the members "care" or not about society.

One of the core terms that is transversal to almost all communities is "Hypergamy". (The central one on MRA is Gynocentrism). And is a tricky one.

Men on these communities are used to gaslight and belittle external people, but also they bully each other constantly. In spanish, for example, MGTOW ones used to dedicate each other long livestreams and called each other cucks, betas, manginas, etc. One point of discussion and "artistry" on the manosphere is hypergamy. It has inspired long videos, livestreams, books, blogspots and debate among its members. Entire communities have been divided over this concept, and others have been created.

In their videos and "private" spaces they call any woman hypergamous. MacKenzie Scott divorced Jeff Bezos, and she was called hypergamous by these people, arguing that she planned it all and ignoring that she divorced because Jeff cheated on her. Women who date men who are more attractive than them are hypergamous, women who date men who are less atractive than them but have money are hypergamous, women who date men with less education than them are hypergamous. Women who rate men "below average" (another male bullshit story) are hypergamous.

Women's nature is hypergamous and male nature is not, even if men also leave their geriatric wives for 20 year old women, even if men also cheat with a more attractive mistress, even if men marry more educated women, even if men marry women with more money. They are not hypergamous, they are polygamous, but also don't mind to settle with a woman given that "women choose" and men barely have any chance with women.

Are you getting it, right? Anything a woman do is hypergamy. Except when you call them out and tell them it's all fake. Then, they come with studies on hypergamy. "How can you say that women are not hypergamous if this study say that they 'marry up'?". Suddenly the term only applies to marriage.

Here's the deal. Hypergamy is a term used by social scientists that is related to marriage and the act of marrying up in social class, annual income or status. Since superior education in the west is a high sign of status (repeated two times in a list of status signals among men and women across 14 countries), studies on the subject account for income and degrees.

The research found that women are married to men who earn more than them, but don't have more education than them, so men are "marrying up" in status. Such trend has no substantially changed among decades. Nevertheless, it is recognized that it doesn't translate on men being the breadwinners, given that most marriages are dual income.

But it's enough to them, even when the second they provide those studies they make it clear they are being dishonest. The seeds have been planted; women are choosing only the rich ones to marry, leaving poorer men single. The one who is debating them and the ones watching the exchange, only have to start to believe that female hypergamy is rising, being amplified by technology and being extended to other aspects of relationships.

The Lie

The manosphere term is not the one that social scientists use. It is whimsical and doesn't have sense...on the surface. The magic is on repeating that women are hypergamous, that they will choose all the time only a few men and let the rest sexless, single or childless, that sexual revolution and women's freedom of choice is a disaster and contrary to civilization. If the lie is repeated enough times, people will start to believe it.

And well, it worked. It worked so well that feminists, instead of checking the data, see the male strategy and debunk the nonsense, decided to repeat the same lie. Women are choosing better, women are making men single and sexless! Pussy Power! There is literally a book on this.

White supremacists also adopted the term, and the manosphere also adopted white supremacists perspective; they quote the work of Roger Devlin, Sexual Utopia in Power from time to time.

Normal people also believe in it. They say that there is a male sexlessness crisis, singleness crisis, marriage crisis, birthrate crisis. And women are the problem, they should lower their crazy standards, they should stop being delusional.

Women are rating 80% of men below average! They are delusional! Their simps make them believe they are 10/10!

It's extremely easy to fall in the rabbit hole. They start hearing about a disbalance on the distribution of sex, or dating, or in dating apps matches. They start hearing about a singleness crisis among men, and they have already accepted that such disbalance, such crisis is a modern thing, because no one seemed to talk about it in the past. (right?)

They hear about male loneliness and mental health issues, and they understand that the disbalance is a bad thing. So they are one step away from start believing that mating is a process that should be regulated and controlled by the state, religion or cultural norms. Like, one click away from watching Jordan Peterson saying exactly that.

The manosphere have been repeating this idea for more than 10 years. At least one decade feminists had to stop this shitshow and they didn't, which is surprising given that the whole thing is perfectly summarized in the white supremacist essay I linked above.

The ones who spread and believe in this idea don't care about the data, they want the narrative, and it can be used to promote diverse agendas. So, instead of debunking and calling out, they prefered to use the narrative for the feminist cause and they are now losing. Women are losing. Women lost.

The truth

While the General Social Survey graph from 2018 is made viral again and again on social media, the same survey on more recent years is completely ignored.

The most repeated bunk of the last couple years.

Reality is that in both 2021 and 2022, the sexless in those years where below the 20%, which is consistent with former years. Most men and women were having sex. In 2021, women even reported being slightly more sexless than men.

The survey also included a variable to measure people who were sexless for the last 5 years. Less than 10% of men and women reported being sexless.

It is also repeated constantly that there are more single men than women, and it is suggested that it is because women are part of soft harems with High Value Males. This idea has been repeated so many times that even researchers have adopted it.

But the truth is that this disparity has been a thing for decades, even a century.

Before the sexual revolution, when everyone was married (right?) there was also a disparity between single men and single women. The key here is that the disparity exists between young people, and the most near explanation is age gap relationships. But also, nowadays people report less interest in having a relationship.

I't curious how the "women and men are different" crowd swear that single women are looking for casual dates with "high value males" when it has been proven over and over than men have a higher sexual drive.

Dating apps don't seem to aggravate any human mating tendency, hook up culture has remained the same since the 80's. Here's a deep dive on dating apps and dating.

Academic naiveté(?

Manosphere gives a final push for the hypergamy narrative by quoting the experts on the matter. And somehow, researchers don't have a problem with it.

It has been said that there is or will be a mating crisis among educated women, because there will be a shortage of high income husbands. They say "women don't marry because there are not enough economically attractive men". And with "don't marry" they understand "remain single and childless".

Such crisis doesn't exist. Marriages between college educated people are the longest ones, even there are less widows and divorces. Educated women are more likely to be married than the opposite.

Their focus is on marriage, and I don't know why. They willfully ignore that between 40% and 60% of children are born outside of marriage in most European countries and how american women see children as a need and marriage as a luxury.

In the US, the poor are cohabitating and having children together, but they can't afford to marry or are afraid to marry and divorce just a couple of years later. Women are mating and having children with men that barely can pay bills, but they keep pushing for the "women are too picky" narrative.

The real crisis is happening among classes, the poor are poorer and the rich are richer. They are sharing their assests with each other and forming strong families while the poor live paycheck to paycheck.

Ironically, equality and women's choice have achieved what these men are apparently longing for. The secretary marrying her boss or the nurse marrying the surgeon is becoming a thing of the past. The doctor is marrying other doctor, the boss is marrying a woman with a Phd. Notice how rich men are not dating down, even when rich they marry rich women, not the cashier 20 years younger than them.

To counteract this they quote Leonardo Dicaprio and his creepy behavior, without noticing that the man is not marrying or having children with those women. While even richer men are married and with kids with women at their level.

The future

It's clear to me that the agenda is settled, and they will do anything that can reinforce it. They won't be able to use sexlessness or singleness gap as a thing, so they have created a new term: "dysphoric singlehood". And they will start measuring it soon.

The stats, the terms, the memes will change. But the core will remain the same; "women will destroy civilization" at worst and "women's nature cause pain to men -and only men- and it should be controlled or put in check" at best. And there are and there will be groups who will propose tight control over women as a solution.

Conclusion

It is important to understand that evolution doesn't allow everyone to reproduce. It's nothing new that some men and women didn't pass their genes, this was a thing in the past and will always be.

The influence of women on reproduction is discussed, but given that even in cultures with arranged marriages the future wife has a word on it and mothers, who are also women, have also a said in who the husband should be, I highly doubt that there was a long period of time in human history where women had no choice at all. But even if that scenario is true, the whole genetic side of mating still plays a role on it; female bodies reject embryos who are not fit or genetically compatible with them.

Mating, having sex and therefore, reproducing is not a right. The whole point of evolution is that only fit subjects can make it, and the few remaining ones are left behind. This process is not being blow up by technology or women having more freedom.

The most important lesson about data on human relationships, is to be careful with the word "single", because most of the time it is about unmarried people. There is a default focus on married people and anyone who is not married is put in the "single" cage and overlooked. The second lesson here is to not believe a great narrative that relies on only one source or one result obtained in only one given year.

Finally, I think this whole deal exposes feminism as a fraud. They are not rooting for women. Women have been terrorized and killed by men who genuinely believe that there is a crisis caused by women. Instead of thinking on this, they chose to integrate the same narrative for ideological purposes and give women a false sense of power and victory over men.

[dollypopup]

y'all can all cancel me (again) for this, but if there's even a SHRED of 'who should I pick?' from Penelope in season 3, I am tuning out SO fast because like. . .sorry not sorry, there IS no choice. Debling is some crusty OC suitor she barely even knows and Colin is a man who she has been so supposedly in love with to the point where she'd ruin her entire family's reputation to have a potential love story with him. Penelope and Colin have background, years of knowing each other, intimacy that few people in the Ton can boast of having (letters, conversations about purpose, fights and arguments and makeups) and her and Debling have. . .a dance or two at a ball because he's a rebound for Penelope's broken heart. he means nothing. he has no nuance, he has no weight to the story, he is such an afterthought to me. either I wanna see Penelope going 'you know what? I don't even LIKE this dude. he's. . .fine, but I don't care about him even a shred as much as I care about Colin' or the INSTANT Colin's like 'you know what? we should get married' if it's not an immediate 'say less, you're already my husband, try returning me without the receipt, Debling whomst?' then I don't want it!

like. . .it's just so frustrating to see all the 'I hope Debling sweeps her off her feet and she rejects Colin's proposal and she makes him work for it and and and-' nonsense from the fandom and it's always tagged and no matter how many times I block it, it just keeps popping up. I go into the Polin tag for POLIN. I don't give a SHIT about a male love interest other than Colin. Not one. Not a shred. Not an iota.

and also. . .Debling has the 'benefit' of not having depth, or character traits, or HISTORY, so peeps can project onto him however they want, but I'm calling it now, there is NOTHING he could do or be that would make me like him more than Colin. Colin will always hit different, and I will always love him more. and if Pen's not on that same page? lol bye

you want me to believe Penelope and Colin are soulmates and it's romance for her to hem and haw about how difficult a decision it is for her to marry a stranger who knows barely anything about her. . .

when Marina was out here dropping banger lines like 'You were the only man with which I could see myself being happy' and 'I do not care about any of these men, where is Colin?'? like hello??? and she wasn't even fully in love with him!!!! but we'll demonize her until the cows come home in our fandom and make her the villain in Polin's love story for DARING to get in between Polin, yet Debling, a white man, is a darling dear perfect prince for getting in between Polin? existing in our fandom solely so Penelope can be like 'lol, Colin ain't shit, let me entertain any and everyone else'?

if that's the direction it goes then, ten toes down and on my mama, she doesn't deserve Colin and she can move because I'm on my way to court him my damn self

and that's that on that

[lebensmudewing]

Erin Pizzey, the MRA figure for excellence, founded a Men's shelter. Contrary to MRA narrative, she did get funding for it, the government gave her a shelter for men. The reason why it didn't thrive is that they didn't find any male volunteer to help those men; men didn't donate to the shelter -most rich people are men-, and male "victims" themselves didn't cook or clean or made community with each other at all.

And I said "male victims" because since Erin Pizzey says that "mutual abuse" is real, it's not clear if those guys were actually the abusers or victims. In her autobiography the whole thing about men's shelter is not broadly explained and it's not clear who went there.

Remember this when they start with their "but what about men".

They had a chance, and they didn't care.

Here's a video on the topic:

They prefer to harass women when they are talking about their experiences instead of spamming powerful men accounts, send emails to politicians or support men who have been actually abused.

Don't be fooled when some MRA says "bbut I donated to X,Y,Z organization". For every MRA who say this, there are 100 MRAs who still don't do shit and harass women for talking. Those MRA who donate don't call out those men, they still prefer to call out women.

The man of the video suffered domestic violence in hands of a female partner and he reports constantly being harassed and ridiculed by those same exact males who say "bbut men too" all day.

The reason why MRAs don't support him is because they can't weaponize his story against feminism, and is the same reason why they keep bringin Erin Pizzey to the conversation. Once Pizzey failed with her men's shelter, she joined MRA's and repeated nonstop that evil feminists shot her dog, that evil feminists shut down men's shelter and male victims. Anything but recognize that yes, the shelter was done and men didn't care then.

“And I have talked to some genuinely mistreated men, and that was, indeed, how they reacted; they come up to me and say things like, “I really get what you’re talking about, because I actually had a pretty similar experience.” So I get immediately suspicious of a man who stands up angrily, and starts growling, “Why aren’t you talking about this happening to men?? This happened to me!!” This style of guy doesn’t express any caring about what is happening to women. Nor does he express any gratitude towards the women and men who are working to assist abused women and to stop abusers. There’s no sign that he feels any sense of common ground with abused women. So I don’t buy his story. I think what he’s really mad about is that we won’t shut up about what so many men are doing to women.”

“Twenty years or so ago, we started to hear that it was important to talk more about male victims. The argument was that it would give our movement against domestic violence more appeal, because men would realize that it can happen to them too. We’d broaden our reach. It’s been a tremendous mistake.”

“The domestic violence movement has de-genderized itself. The programs are now called “domestic violence programs,” not “abused women’s programs” as they were known before. We talk about abusers and victims as “he or she,” ignoring statistics that show that it’s overwhelmingly male-on-female. When we talk about the issue, we try to make sure we aren’t hurting men’s feelings with too much truth-telling. Has this broadened and strengthened our movement? No, not a bit. The domestic violence movement is far weaker than it was twenty years ago, not stronger. Many, many of the gains that we made are now being stripped away, more every year. (Women’s rights in general are being stripped away in our times, as you have most likely noticed.)”

“Don’t be apologetic about making women your agenda. Don’t apologize for putting women’s needs and rights front and center. When someone tells you that you should be talking about male victims too, I encourage you to respond, “There are hundreds of issues in this world that need to be addressed. Are you saying that I can’t address what happens to women unless I also address every other wrong that happens in the world? Why isn’t it okay to make women my focus?””

Excerpts from: Lundy Bancroft. Men’s Angry Messages to Me Part 2. November 14, unknown.

[flugame-mp3]

what do you fucking mean that's how charlie dies. THAT'S HOW CHARLIE DIES??? i mean i know the show has a penchant for killing off every character who's not a winchester brother or an angel of thursday but good god. what the fuck. charlie was such a good and enjoyable recurring character, and she had such a fandom impact that i've seen, and she's only around for THREE SEASONS?? (sidebar: it's amazing she has the presence she does for only being around for a couple episodes in the long run!) but: was this necessary? and she just dies offscreen after her skills are utilized to progress the plot of decoding the book of the damned?? oh my god. what in the actual fuck. i'm finding myself getting genuinely very upset at her death. she did not fucking deserve that. and i can absolutely see why the fan response to her death is what it is now. completely fucking unjustified and throwaway and useless.

[thesmokinpossum]

I can't believe y'all almost made me pay to go watch po*r th*ngs in theater without telling me that the whole thing revolves around a hardcore born sexy yesterday trope with a side dish of pseudo necrophilia where a woman with the brain of a litteral foetus who don't have periods or body hair (but do have boobs!) find joy and freedom by having a lot of sex with a bunch of men, shoving a apple up her vagina for some reason and joining a brothel (but it's a cool socialist brothel and all the girls looove being there, don't worry guys), all of that written and directed by two men, I'm never gonna trust you guys after this one lmao

[dbphantom]

Hate having adhd went to go work on my fallout modpack, got distracted while going to disable the steam overlay, ended up in the points shop, went to go edit my profile, decided to change my pfp, found a buried folder I forgot existed, found some old Veneer art I forgot existed, spent 45 minutes looking at all the old photos, STILL HAVE NOT TOGGLED ONE SIMPLE OPTION THAT SHOULD'VE TAKEN 30 SECONDS AT MOST

[lebensmudewing]

Wait, are you saying that only because women respond in such way given an hypothetical scenario (so, not real) they are misandrists?

And it is bad enough to label them as abusers and oppressors?

If men decide to give women's rights away only for seeing a woman responding in a non flattering way about an hypothetical non-real scenario I'm inclined to think he was never a good person

Women daily hear about how they hit the wall, are emotional, stupid, can't decide, shouldn't vote and they still don't want to deny men their basic rights, kill them, rape them. Women still treat men as human beings and even marry and have kids with them.

You should stop with this bs, men are not getting radicalized. Women are the radical ones. It's crazy how people can see this and conclude "ah yes, men are radicalized".

Misogyny is not new, if you go to a manosphere forum you will see the same ideas men have been repeating for centuries even thousands of years. Men wanting to control women is not groundbreaking, it's every day stuff. The entire history of humanity women have had to fight for being considered capable human beings, these times are an outlier in the big scheme of human history.

It is not a trend caused by women, men will always see more appealing the party that tells them they are geniuses with rights over other people only because they have a penis.

I'm sorry if it is depressing for you, but even today the thought that women are human beings that should have autonomy, independence and rights is seen as radical. It is "progressive" stuff, the mere existence of feminism proves that the system is broken and rigged against us; "we have to fight", "battle of the sexes", "we should not go to the extremes". And literally the extreme is seeing women as human beings, not like the obvious natural position that every human being breathing right now has. And it is because they don't have it, and as long humanity exists we will still have to fight for the obvious.

The bare thought that we have to negotiate and convince men, and take care of every word on internet -on an ecosystem full of bots so only god knows if those "Misandrists" comment were done by a woman and liked by real women- is proof that we are cooked.

The reality is that in a disaster men are more likely to surive than women. Yeah, that's not a fictional scenario, in real life men are more likely to leave behind they wives and children to save themselves. In what countries that trend is weaker? Yep, in feminists gender egalitarian countries. So much for misandrist women it seems. Men will see women surviving at equal rates as them and saying they want to preserve their own lifes on a disaster an cry misandry.

This isn’t going to go well, I can feel it

but a lot of current “feminist” circles are just mislabeled misandrists

For the context, this tt was a woman posting her anniversary video w/ a paraphrased caption of “if you could only save one of us from a burning building, save him”, and the overwhelming opinion in the comments (10k plus upvotes) is “never, and I mean NEVER love a man this much”

… I’m sorry. Why not? This bitter, girlboss v. tradwife mentality floating around has created a rhetoric that leaves a lot of women becoming the abuser slash oppressor, which is not liberation

And I think it’s become obvious with the outcome of the last election, the misogynistic patriarchy mindset is spreading at an alarming rate. And I know women have been swallowing rage for centuries, told to be silent, smothered and buried but—

do not chase good sons into the arms of evil men because of the hatred you feel for their fathers

Do not chase good sons into the arms of evil men because of the hatred you feel for their fathers.

[kimyoonmiauthor]

Death of the Author by Ronald Barthes (1967)

Full disclosure, I've never really liked this essay. That said, I do like Barthes' other arguments. But I always found this one lacking, not in its central thesis that readers also matter, but I find that the lines of evidence are really poor. People worship this argument far too much without examination of why it has no citations and no one seems to be willing to question the argument in full from other viewpoints of things like, does it make philosophical sense?

But then people often use this essay as a crutch to say they don't need authorcism, and in fact go towards 100% readercism and then skip out on other critical theories. This isn't exactly what it argues, but I also feel like it doesn't argue the points it wants to make well. And truly, if I handed something like this in as an undergrad to my English classes, I'd be marked down hard. I think we need the same level of scrutiny towards the so-called masters as we do towards students and don't make excuses for "Because he's well-liked". This wasn't a new idea like he suggests. Authorcism goes further back than he suggests–but because people don't want to challenge these notions (and apparently don't read all the way through Poetics?) they think he's brilliant?

Dude gave no citations. Seriously. All his assertions are on weak ground.

Man, sometimes I think being born a white straight male means never being questioned when you make wild assertions and no one will ever fact check you ever. Well, I'm fact checking this thing, and it's not coming up the way he wants.

Original file: (translated, 1977)

No one wants to say this is racist or challenge the whole, "In ethnographic societies the responsibility for a narrative is never assumed by a person, but by a mediator, shaman or realtor whose 'performance' the mastery of the narrative code–may possibly be admired but never his 'genius'."

The core idea that the "author" is a modern figure is disputed by Aristotle, when Aristotle goes on and on and on about how much of a effing genius Sophocles was. I mean that Homer dude, that Homer dude wasn't good for anything and is a distant second to Sophocles. (Why do I remember this? Because I read the whole of Poetics and *cough* Aristotle waxes on poetic about Sophocles and barely mentions anyone else.)

No one wants to challenge how this basis and core of his thesis is coming off racist?

It's reading as those "primitive" people in that effing functionalist snobbery where some civilizations are "more advanced" than others storytellers aren't lauded. Ummm... OK, prove it, buddy. Your anthropology is faulty.

Often shaman, the keepers of the stories of the tribe/organization are lauded in their communities as important. If this was NOT true, the British Empire wouldn't have specifically gone after and tried to KILL those people. If he's arguing that the author was less important in those stories, that those people said, which is an interpretation, because he's not directly saying it, then the problem with that is there is a difference between losing the author, and what we'd call resonance of the words. And then you have a whole semantics question here on how much do stories outlive their authors, and how much there is over attribution issues to people that should not be lauded.

And then that's a whole other question than authorcism v. readercism. Because even those stories without the original author who might have shifted over time, still have other ways to read the text. Those are historicism, cultural relativism, race theory, etc. All of which, BTW, did exist by the time Barthes was writing. To pin his hopes on readercism, and say something this effing racist, that copyright does not matter to tribes, without textual evidence, when Kung! do respect copyright ideas, at the very least, is trying to kill the author, but also bury everything else in literary discourse, which was an issue I had with Percy Lubbock, to be fair, because I thought his way of thinking was far too reductive.

There's no citation?

The explanation of a work is always sought in the man or woman who produced it, as if it were always in the end, through the more or less transparent allegory of the fiction, the voice of a single·person, the author 'confiding' in us.

I disagree, it's an overstatement at this point in time. Selden Lincoln Whitcomb, did do some of this, but he also looked at other things to explain the text. And there was Percy Lubbock who introduced Readercism (not the coinage, but the concept) in 1921. (yes, 1921, eat it, it sounds like plagiarism....). The absolutist idea that it was always sought through the author before this point isn't true. 'cause I effing did my reading.

Percy Lubbock said it was ultimately up to the reader to know the context, etc. Earlier critics have also suggested things like partnership between audience and creators. This would be writers such as Bertolt Brecht, who was around by the time Barthes was writing and gets half-hearted cited, no less. TT I did a ton of reading. There was a ton of effort in the early 19th century to give more context to plays like Antigone. Even that jerk, Freytag tried to give context to Aristotle, though wrongly. He uses (wrong) Historcism in order to illuminate Aristotle.

Though the sway of the Author remains powerful (the new criticism has often done no more than consolidate it)

What? As I outlined, I don't see that. He's making assertions without citation. And then people aren't challenging it. Why? I would be 100% be required to give citations for either assertion.

In France, Mallarme was doubtless the first to see and to foresee in its full extent the necessity to substitute language itself for the person who until then had been supposed to be its owner. For him, for us too, it is language which speaks, not the author; to write is, through a prerequisite impersonality (not at all to be confused with the castrating objectivity of the realist novelist), to reach that point where only language acts, 'performs', and not 'me'. Mallarme~s entire poetics consists in suppressing the author in the interests of writing (which is, as will be seen, to restore the place of the reader).

Stéphane Mallarmé was born 1842. No citation of the essay. TT Again, I'd be required to cite the effing essay. No one wants to challenge this? Intertextual evidence is missing. For a guy who says the reader is most important, he isn't doing a lot to prove it in his own work.

Instead, Barthes gets lauded by later writers by interpreting what the author meant when the author didn't say it?

It was largely by learning the lesson of Mallarmé that critics like Roland Barthes came to speak of 'the death of the author' in the making of literature. Rather than seeing the text as the emanation of an individual author's intentions, structuralists and deconstructors followed the paths and patterns of the linguistic signifier, paying new attention to syntax, spacing, intertextuality, sound, semantics, etymology, and even individual letters. The theoretical styles of Jacques Derrida, Julia Kristeva, Maurice Blanchot, and especially Jacques Lacan also owe a great deal to Mallarmé's 'critical poem." --Barbara Johnson, "Translator's Note" to Stéphane Mallarmé, Divagations, trans. Johnson, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007, pg. 301.

Isn't this against what he's arguing for? He didn't leave it on the page. He didn't say any of this. Barthes left no evidence. Reader with no context wins?

To be fair, here, I've seen Barthes other work and he does know how to do citations, but Johnson is flat out trying to explain the author for him and I don't like that. If you're arguing for readercism, then the author's intentions shouldn't need to be explained.

By putting it behind a veil of "Well, he did no citations, so we need to interpret what he meant" when he doesn't leave it on the page, that's authorcism, ironically. Makes me cranky when white men get away with doing no citations to prove their thesis.

Barthes cites Valery is Paul Valéry b. 1871, also no citation. I'd get lambasted if I did this. Ah, white male privilege.

No intertextual evidence for his assertion here, either. While I don't love Lubbock 100% and I thought he oversimplified, at least he put *effing citations* on the page to prove his assertions.

Where are the citations? He doesn't need them? Why?

Proust gave modern writing its epic.

There's no proof for this assertion. I don't think it's true either. Epic of Gigamesh. It was translated in 1875, not by Proust. Barthes knew about it. He's not giving the context well in the text either.

There's no citation for his assertions of Proust either. He makes opinions, but where is the textual evidence?

The removal of the Author (one could talk here with·Brecht of a veritable 'distancing', the Author diminishing like a figurine at the far end of the literary stage)

He cites Brecht, not the particular work?? But also Brecht argued for partnership between audience and author a bit at least?

Urrrgghhhh I HATE writers like this. Have I not gone over how much I dislike people who do assertions without citation and then get lauded?

The Author, when believed in, is always conceived of as" the past of his own book: book and author stand automatically " on a single line' divided into a before and an after. The Author is thought to nourish the book, which is to say that he exists before it, thinks, suffers, lives for it, is in the same relation of antecedence to his work as a father to his child.

Barthes, citation? No citation?

You asserted it was a "New idea" that the author reigned supreme. Prove it. Show the work that says that. Because Aristotle, nope. Aristotle worshiped the living pants off of Sophocles.

Look, Lubbock did a better job supporting his assertions in this area. He actually cited living works and did intertextual evidence. I agreed that his assertions are reductive like Virginia Woolf, but at least the man cited Tolstoy. He didn't make wild assertions about Tolstoy and then hoped that someone would get the references, and then cite no works.

In complete contrast, the modern scriptor is born simultaneously with the text, is in no way equipped with a being preceding or exceeding the writing, is not the subject with the book as predicate; there is no other time than that of the enunciation and every text IS eternally written here and now.

Modern from when? What time period? If you're trying to argue anyone before Stéphane Mallarmé existed, again, effing Poetics. Not to effing mention the whole of Aelius Donatus's entire treaties on how plays should go was based on a single author: Terence. In what time period are you talking about? Author worship goes way back in time. Effing reading about Aelius Donatus loving the hell out of Terence's play with r*** made me cranky for a week. He found it sooo funny. And I was struggling with the Latin too.

The fact is (or, it·follows) that writing can no longer designate an operation of recording, notation, representation, 'depiction' (as the Classics would say)

which ones, Barthes, which ones? Give me an effing citation. 'cause I can't see that the "depiction" reigned supreme over the "author" through Aristotle literally ranking Sophocles as better than Homer. Aristotle kept going on and on about it. Plus you just cited Brecht earlier, who hates Aristotle's ass. So, make it mesh together. Which parts of the "Classics" are you citing, and which parts of Brecht are you taking from? Brecht HATES Aristotle, and most of the time when people talk of Classics, they are talking about Greek plays. You need to delineate which parts you are taking and which you leave behind.

rather, it designates exactly what linguists, referring to Oxford philosophy, call a performative, a rare verbal form (exclusively given in the first person and in the present tense) in which the enunciation has no other content (contains no other proposition) than the act by which it is uttered - something like the I declare of kings or the I sing of very ancient poets.

No citation again. I'm cranky. No citation or quotes for all these pages. For an author whose supposedly arguing for "readercism" and "simplicity" by leaving it on the page, as the critic earlier, Johnson, is saying, he's not doing either, honestly.

Having buried the Author, the modern scriptor can thus no longer believe, as according to the pathetic view of his predecessors, that this hand is too slow for his thought or passion and that consequently, making a law of necessity, he must emphasize this delay and indefinitely 'polish' his form. For him, on the contrary, the hand, cut off from any voice, borne by a pure gesture of inscription (and not of expression), traces a field without origin - or which, at least, has no other origin than language itself, language which ceaselessly calls into question all origins.

Honestly, there is more burying of citations.

He's saying in the fanciest of words to make it sound like he's smarter than he is, that "You aren't dumb 'cause you don't understand the author." If he's arguing for simplicity and leaving on the page, he's not practicing the same himself. So I don't know if the earlier argument by Johnson works in his favor at all.

We know now that a text is not a line of words releasing a single 'theological' meaning (the 'message' of the Author God) but a multi-dimensional space in which a variety of writings, none' of them original, blend and clash. The text is a tissue of quotations drawn from the innumerable centres of culture. Similar to Bouvard and Pecuchet, those eternal copyists, at once sublime and comic and whose profound ridiculousness indicates precisely the truth of writing, the writer can only imitate a gesture that is always anterior, never original.

I have issues with this from a philosophical PoV.

The question of originality, is certainly something that rose with industrialization, but that's more of an individualism, rather than an authorcism, I would argue–given how much that Aristotle, Aelius Donatus and others around the world tried very hard to preserve authorship. An argument of lost authorship overtime is a totally different affair, and one I've been dealing with as people over attribute, and I find that quotes are wrongly attributed because people don't remember the author or are too lazy to look up the texts they are talking about (I'm staring at you Barthes).

Individualism, is well, well argued to have risen with industrialization. Off the top of my head, though not in Barthes' time, you have Lucy Worsley, who in A Very British Romance argued that individualism in Romance is a very modern notion (argued, first episode within the first few minutes). Not to mention a lot of social sciences, in general, argue for this type of individualism, and then that argument, in general, leading to the arguments for why industrialization often leads to loneliness. To be contextually fair to Barthes, he didn't have the bit about loneliness yet, since that's a more recent sort of studying, but the scholarship on individualism as a part of industrialization should have been emerging in his time period, IIRC. This might have spurred this essay, but the notion that historicism and other ways of examining the text along with the author did not exist is a farce, at best.

One could argue the Butterfly effect, which is Henri Poincaré, prior to Barthes' existence of his essay, would disprove the idea of originality, but we're getting neck deep into physics and philosophy here. I am a nerd and interdisciplinary, so...

Say huip is a new thingy. It weighs 200 lbs. It does a bunch of new stuff–very theoretical. It doesn't matter. Someone newly buys this object that can do new stuff. It is a result of culture. Yes? Interwoven culture, as Barthes describes.

Bob has bought this huip thingy, and drops it down some stairs and finds that it rolls, not doing the original intended function. This is his particular life experience with huip. He thinks that 200lbs being able to bounce down stairs is awesome. I mean, dude, it defies all physics and is able to go down and turn on stair landings.

Bob posts this information somewhere, puts it into text, and then his interpretation, is by writing it, it is fun.

Sally, say, does the same thing, but kills a cat.

The first ripple is that it has killed a cat. Oh no, Sally's interpretation of huip is that the cat is dead and she's getting sued.

Isn't Sally's interpretation of huip and this thing it can do, but wasn't designed for novel as Bob's interpretation? If they both post about it, they are authors of a new experience.

If the manufacturers of huip say, but Huip isn't supposed to do that and do a total recall of the product and start doing things like making it so it can't roll, or weigh that amount, then the experience of the object changes. A new novel experience happens.

So the philosophical question is "What is then new?" in this scenario. If Barthes says "nothing" then it becomes an issue. Because humans aren't the same over time. And if you say that the author, Bob of the huip meme, didn't have a novel experience, dude, it is 200 lbs of menace and he discovered something new.

The fact that Sally interpreted it and then it ran over the cat and killed it... who is liable in that scenario? Bob, who didn't follow the instructions and accidentally found out and memed out what huip can do, the manufacturer, or Sally or all three?

Something clearly new happened.

BTW, I randomly pressed letters to come up with said object, huip.

If the experience is always anterior and not original, then how come witnesses never agree on anything? I don't think Barthes thought this part through completely. It's missing some key French Philosophers.

His only power is to mix writings, to counter the ones with the others, in such a way as never to rest on anyone of them.

Writers go outside and do things like experience seeing a new animal. Saying that a writer only mixes previous writing and cultural functions... meh, I'm not quite sure about this.

If his total argument is culture shapes the writer, and the writer has no free will, and the writer is merely mixing other writers, thus there is nothing new, this is more like an argument for determinism over free will, which runs into philosophical problems as I illustrated with Bob up there. Bob had a novel experience he wrote about. It wasn't the intention of the manufacturer, but gravity is not manufactured by culture. Stairs are manufactured by culture. Did an accident with gravity and a manufacturing error shape Bob into writing and memeing what he did with the huip? Or was it really Sir Issac Newton whom Bob never bothered to read, but loosely heard about once in Science Class for a test and he can't bother to remember the numbers for gravity.

Writers have experiences outside of books. The filter might be culture, but the filter doesn't always shape everyone's opinion exactly the same. Perspective, worldviews, and experiences do, and that's what's novel.

Barthes further argues that because the author has a dictionary, they are caught in culture. Urrggg. I made up huip on the spot. You still have no idea what the primary function of the object is. I'm sure someone is trying to make up one in their head. Or I typed that up and someone is making it up. But I don't particularly need to know much in order to make up that context. I need stairs, some name, and a mythical object I banged my keyboard for. Gravity is a natural force I personally experience. Especially when I was struggling to put an air conditioner in my window, heard a cat and then wondered what would happen if said air conditioner landed on the cat and then posted about it on Nanowrimo in 2008-ish.

Barthes might argue that I got it from literature somewhere. But the filter of words had nothing to do with the initial experience. I didn't have to put it into words. No one else was there.

Where did I get 200 lbs? Uhhh... random number.

Where did I get the runs over cat–from the original experience of worrying about the air conditioner falling from the window.

Where did I get magically rolls down stairs? I had an experience with a friend of mine that liked to roll down stairs. It was a novel experience for me. She liked to bounce around corners. (Hello, Libbie). If writing is purely words, culture, not nature, experience, worldview, opinion, Barthes has an issue with the treaties here.

My novel experience with the air conditioner and feeling like a weakling and hearing a cat though cat is not a controllable object in my framework, lead me to post about air conditioner falling from my apartment window into a roof, killing a cat, and typing it into Nanowrimo's boards.

Is Barthes saying the entire incident is mediated purely by words? That's a lot of coincidences, don'tcha think?

Gravity isn't a cultural experience and not everyone thinks in words either. In order to write you have to use words, certainly, but the initial experience still is not necessarily mediated by words or culture as he'd expect.

Classic criticism has never paid any attention to the reader; for it, the writer is the only person in literature. We are now beginning to let ourselves be fooled no longer by the arrogant antiphrastical recriminations of good society in favour of the·very thing it sets aside, ignores, smothers, or destroys; we know that to give writing its future, it is necessary to overthrow the myth: the birth of the reader must be at the cost of the death of the Author.

Untrue. Aristotle spends a HUGE amount of time on it. HUGE. !@#$. (We need the play to have negative reinforcement on the reader in a morality PoV–he spends a lot of his treaties on this. How do you achieve this as author. About how the audience should feel. How plays are inferior if they don't achieve this. About how Homer was a poor writer for not doing it correctly and the impact being wrong.) Aelius Donatus even talks about it. (We Latins this. We Latins that. What does the audience think. What's the difference between 'us' Latins and the Greeks? Should we account for the differences?)

His idea is that in the past authors were never worshiped, until the "modern era" and copyright didn't matter. (Untrue, Aristotle). And that the reader has forever been ignored in literary criticism before him. (Brecht, Aristotle, Aelius Donatus?)

We should ignore the author because the reader is the ultimate decider–honestly Percy Lubbock did a better job arguing this in 1921 with less convoluted language.

That everything is mediated by culture for the author and previous texts. (Didn't read Raw and the Cooked by Claude Levi-Strauss? Levi-Strauss, BTW, was French and published before him) And that copyright didn't exist in those all oral tradition tribes. TT Kung! Anyone?

Because you see, according to him, writers don't experience or mediate it through their own lives. Only through texts.

I think the better argument for readercism would follow like this:

Readers have their own experiences and worldviews. This will not be universal or resonate reader to reader because inherently no two people will agree on anything. Despite that there is a sort of cultural agreement to tame what seems like chaos. Writing comes into this chaos and tries to pull meaning from it.

The writer and reader's experience will not close to always match, so the impact of the writing is not going to be the same no matter what you will do. The best you can do is mediate your experiences, whether it's with culture, nature or your personal experiences through writing which is interpreted by others.

As Lubbock said, the text doesn't come alive until a reader reads the text.

To me, Barthes' argument is far, far more poor than Lubbock's argument for the same. At least Lubbock's argument for the same wasn't effing blatantly racist. (I give more leeway to Lubbock in 1921, before the 1960's than Barthes in 1965 who is also French and has clearly access to Levi-Strauss and even talks about ethnographies) It's based on assumptions, the majority of which aren't backed up. Plus he has more to work with if what he says is true. D- argument. He doesn't argue for what to replace it with, doesn't talk about the other critical theories at all. Urgghh. He's done better. But I know, I'm not supposed to question the greats when people worship them. But it irks me that he gives one citation, maybe, and then we blindly believe everything else he wrote. Why? I want some critical thinking here.

For the record, I hated Derrida too. His major flaw for me, BTW, was that he said everything is mediated through words, which is not true. Functionalists suck. Structuralists suck less, but are still effing prone to racism.

Sometimes I wonder if academics purposefully like to teach convoluted texts like this without citations, rather than a cautionary tale, of what will happen, but because it sounds smart and convoluted and because they don't check the assertions as true or not and plus there is a bonus points for the level of racism they can force their students to read, but they gloss over it and say ignore it. I mean, you absolutely need to read Emmanuel Kant, even if you can't with his hatred of women and you're supposed to ignore that part because there are no substitutes in the world that might have said the same things he said better. Urrgghh. Do you purposefully choose the most uptight racist white men to teach and tell that they are lauded? Lubbock made a far, far better argument. Lack of citations and blind worship because of lack of citations+white maleness makes me cranky.

[princecrows]

sumire is a good character on paper and if i wrote her in fanfiction i think i could become a Liker of her but as it stands for literal years since royal came out ive always hated her because of how obvious it is that she exists in the video game persona 5 royal to reach a heterosexuality quota.

its not her fault shes written specifically and explicitly to appeal to the male gaze while also trying to criticize the sexism women have to endure in trying to appeal to the male gaze (really have your cake and eat it too moment) but because her writing is so bland because the game isn't confident in her character yet really wants you to like her i dont like her.

not because i dont like her actual character but because i dont like how the game wants this literal 15 year old to appeal to the male audience so fucking bad, its gross.

[lebensmudewing]

Men don't care about the facts

I once met a die hard misogynist who also hated men

He refused to date women and made a lot of efforst to not have any kind of relationship with them. To talk to him I had to wait two weeks since he was doing a vow of silence to not talk to any women.

He told me he left an english academia, because a woman started to talk to him and trying to hang out with him. Of course, I don't talk to him anymore.

He was and as far as I know still is, a genuine MGTOW. He just left women alone and minded his business. But he wasn't a high IQ successful six figures as MGTOW swear all men can become if they stop dating women. He usually drove while drunk, didn't had a career or a real job, lived with mom and dad and had a family completely progressive and contrary to his values. He also used to bet.

His misogyny was rampant, inflammatory and sophisticated. But he also seemed to hate men. He had a huge prejudice against men, he said that they are predatory, inherently selfish and violent.

But there was a major difference, he also believed that men are superior, that men are smarter, more beautiful, with mind and soul. So every bad characteristic had to be forgiven, while women had to be tightly controlled and punished.

And he acted accordingly, when I showed him a clip of a woman being harassed, it was her fault. If the woman rejected the man and the man exploded violently, it was her fault for not rejecting him nicely. If the woman tried to be polite and still molested, it was her fault for not being more clear.

He was aware of the constant damned if you do, damned if you don't rethoric and didn't have a problem with it. It was part of the principles, because women had to be punished and put on their place. Logic and fairness were not a problem for him, in fact, I believe that for him women had to endure the mistreatment since they were inferior.

Nowadays, everytime I see men talking about women online I see that man talking. It's always the same, doesn't matter who say it, with what words, the nuances of it. It all comes from the same place and it's the same game. Logic doesn't matter, facts don't matter, fairness doesn't matter.

I feel frustated everytime I see women online trying to educate men and respond to them. I understand the importance of counteract male bullshit stories, but everything seems to operate from men's frame. It's us responding to them, instead of them trying to convince us.

For example, the idea that men are entitled to fuck around a lot of women and demand a virgin bride. Everyone ask, well if all women have to remain virgin till marriage, with whom those men will have sex? And I can't help but feel that this is a loser move.

Men don't care about the maths, they care about what benefits them. If when young they feel like fucking around and then later they feel like settling and don't find the promised virgin wife, then it's not "my behavior was wrong" or "I have contributed to the problem", is a "women are the problem and society has to fix it for me". They are not thinking long term, they think it what they want now.

It is not a lack of math what makes them think this way, for them the pieces of the puzzle are fitting perfectly. Women have to gatekeep, be submissive, not think in their own desires and try to please them. They have a whole fantasy around being a kind of predator or a seductor who has conquered the virgin innocent women and has corrupted her, making her impure and damaged. They want to spend their lifes doing that and then settle with women who could not be conquered before.

Their whole self steem and validation relies on that. If a woman wants it and seek it, then they are not worth as much, since they don't have to put any effort or force. It's cheap and easy. If a woman has been with others before, then he is below those men.

It's perfectly logical for them, actually. When they become fathers, they still see themselves as part of the puzzle. Men who want to conquer his daughter have to conquer him too.

Of course, this take doesn't apply to all men perfectly, but all of them have a version of this idea. It seems inherent to men. Men who are succesful with women are sexist but benevolent and men who are not are hostile and misogynistic. Men who are good with women are good because they are getting validation from them, not because they are moral deconstructed people with strong feminist values.

They can't think of women as people by default, their view on them is conditioned on how they see themselves and what they have obtained from women. Their narratives and ideas stem from this, they don't respond to any external logic, their internal clock is right everytime of the year and your facts and math can't and won't change that.

It is said that if women would start act differently, men will act accordingly. I see more truth on it, but it won't solve everything. Not only because of the male allies, but because men will still act whitin their frame. If all women start to reject men, an unknown number of men will act from their entitlement and could literally kill us before seeking inside or listening to women about what they actually want. If women start to set the standard high and only reproduce with decent men, a lot of men will be excluded and will protest and sabotage.

Their firmware remains the same, they are superior, they worth more, they are entitled to you, you owe them something. It's not possible to reason a man out of that, so stop trying wasting your time and mental health on it. If they wanted to reach out, they would and they don't.

[lebensmudewing]

"Hating on men and claiming masculinity is evil is going to have the complete opposite effect as to what you intended."

Men and male advocates seem unable to understand that "toxic masculinity" is the same shit as saying "purple crayon". In the second setence everyone with more than two braincells can get that it is being said that some crayons are purple, but they can't manage to apply the same logic to "toxic masculinity" and get that it is being said that "some masculinities are toxic".

And I don't know why people can't type "toxic masculinity" and read on the wikipedia page that they term was created by men themselves to describe their experiences.

"Toxic masculinity emerged within the mythopoetic men's movement of the 1980s, coined by Shepherd Bliss. Bliss confirmed to me in a 2019 email that he coined the term to characterize his father's militarized, authoritarian masculinity."

"Instead what happens is he gets met with dozens upon dozens of people claiming men DON'T have emotions"

Are those dozen of people in the room with us right now?

Like, women can be told they are inferior, stupid, that they are uninteresting, that their hobbies are not real hobbies, that they cry to manipulate people, that they are "asking for it" when they share their SA stories and then still don't want take men's rights away.

"He's going to assume that's his fate and be shitty, because he was never met with kindness and understanding, he was told his kind is automatically evil."

Ah, the classic case of being called a bad person by internet strangers and then not having more remedy but being a bad person.

Yep, that's how it works.

You all are desperate to portray men as this innocent and hypersensitive creatures without critical thinking skills that are only bad because they are not pampered enough, swearing you are making a great case in their favor, when just confirms that men are entitled crybabies that can't handle a fraction of what they dish out.

Their tragedy is not getting enough free emotional labor from women, my tragedy is that men strip women's rights away.

Hating on men and claiming masculinity is evil is going to have the complete opposite effect as to what you intended.

Let me set the scene, there's a freshly 13 year old boy, he's been told his whole life that boys don't cry, boys aren't allowed to have feelings. He gets internet access, and what SHOULD be happening is that people tell him that's all wrong and of course boys should have emotions, but that doesn't happen. Instead what happens is he gets met with dozens upon dozens of people claiming men DON'T have emotions. This boy tries to fight back, he replies to a post and he says that it's not true, boys aren't evil and they can be sad and hurt sometimes. What happens? People bully him. They laugh at him for being sad, say he deserves it. They tell him all men are horrible and he's destined to be evil.

What do you think happens? Do you think he's going to put in the effort to be a good guy? Fuck no. He's going to assume that's his fate and be shitty, because he was never met with kindness and understanding, he was told his kind is automatically evil.

[cherish--these--times]

Sure, baking biscuits every single day for your boss is peak platonic behaviour. Sure, offering millions of pounds and finding a job for your ex-wife is peak platonic behaviour.

If Ted and Rebecca had been gorgeous twenty-somethings I bet the overall we-should-have-more-platonic-male/female-friendship-onscreen discourse would have not even emerged....

[arolesbianism]

Every now and then I have to remember I got into oni for the gameplay. I bought the game solely because the gameplay looked interesting to me. Even once I realized there was lore I actively decided I didn't care enough to go through it. I fell down the rabbit hole on Accident. And it's all because I read scientist Bubble's journals and realized that onis story was the most me bait thing I've ever seen Ever

[musical-chick-13]

Cannot BELIEVE I had to have a conversation with someone where, after I complained about people Not Wanting To Write About Women, I then had to explain that yes, I DO write about men sometimes, actually; no I don't hate men; yes I write from the POV of the men in numerous cases and also analyze them.

[sammysam999]

Idk if it's funny or just inconvenient, but after being so fed up by getting dead named I just threw my supplemental id (in Germany you can get one as trans person from the dtig until your name got changed officially and schools, universities and other public entities have to respect it) at them and they now changed it on my certifications too.

This might be an issue because my work place doesn't know that I not just have a preferred nickname but am indeed trans. It's okay because it's a public service job, I am an union member, the job and team is generally queer friendly and I got that position because they can't lose another person trained in that department, so I basically don't fear getting fired because of it, because hell of a lawsuit they would lose and my department literally might collapse with one person less, but still it's a weird situation to be in and having to explain.