#you can discuss and make it less systematic

[amateurvoltaire]

For the past six years or so, this graph has been making its rounds on social media, always reappearing at conveniently timed moments…

The insinuation is loud and clear: parallels abound between 18th-century France and 21st-century USA. Cue the alarm bells—revolution is imminent! The 10% should panic, and ordinary folk should stock up on non-perishables and, of course, toilet paper, because it wouldn’t be a proper crisis without that particular frenzy. You know the drill.

Well, unfortunately, I have zero interest in commenting on the political implications or the parallels this graph is trying to make with today’s world. I have precisely zero interest in discussing modern-day politics here. And I also have zero interest in addressing the bottom graph.

This is not going to be one of those "the [insert random group of people] à la lanterne” (1) kind of posts.  If you’re here for that, I’m afraid you’ll be disappointed.

What I am interested in is something much less click-worthy but far more useful: how historical data gets used and abused and why the illusion of historical parallels can be so seductive—and so misleading. It’s not glamorous, I’ll admit, but digging into this stuff teaches us a lot more than mindless rage.

So, let’s get into it. Step by step, we’ll examine the top graph, unpick its assumptions, and see whether its alarmist undertones hold any historical weight.

Step 1: Actually Look at the Picture and Use Your Brain

When I saw this graph, my first thought was, “That’s odd.” Not because it’s hard to believe the top 10% in 18th-century France controlled 60% of the wealth—that could very well be true. But because, in 15 years of studying the French Revolution, I’ve never encountered reliable data on wealth distribution from that period.

Why? Because to the best of my knowledge, no one was systematically tracking income or wealth across the population in the 18th century. There were no comprehensive records, no centralised statistics, and certainly no detailed breakdowns of who owned what across different classes. Graphs like this imply data, and data means either someone tracked it or someone made assumptions to reconstruct it. That’s not inherently bad,  but it did get my spider senses tingling.

Then there’s the timeframe: 1760–1790. Thirty years is a long time— especially when discussing a period that included wars, failed financial policies, growing debt, and shifting social dynamics. Wealth distribution wouldn’t have stayed static during that time. Nobles who were at the top in 1760 could be destitute by 1790, while merchants starting out in 1760 could be climbing into the upper tiers by the end of the period. Economic mobility wasn’t common, but over three decades, it wasn’t unheard of either.

All of this raises questions about how this graph was created. Where’s the data coming from? How was it measured? And can we really trust it to represent such a complex period?

Step 2: Check the Fine Print

Since the graph seemed questionable, the obvious next step was to ask: Where does this thing come from? Luckily, the source is clearly cited at the bottom: “The Income Inequality of France in Historical Perspective” by Christian Morrisson and Wayne Snyder, published in the European Review of Economic History, Vol. 4, No. 1 (2000).

Great! A proper academic source. But, before diving into the article, there’s a crucial detail tucked into the fine print:

“Data for the bottom 40% in France is extrapolated given a single data point.”

What does that mean?

Extrapolation is a statistical method used to estimate unknown values by extending patterns or trends from a small sample of data. In this case, the graph’s creator used one single piece of data—one solitary data point—about the wealth of the bottom 40% of the French population. They then scaled or applied that one value to represent the entire group across the 30-year period (1760–1790).

Put simply, this means someone found one record—maybe a tax ledger, an income statement, or some financial data—pertaining to one specific year, region, or subset of the bottom 40%, and decided it was representative of the entire demographic for three decades.

Let’s be honest: you don’t need a degree in statistics to know that’s problematic. Using a single data point to make sweeping generalisations about a large, diverse population (let alone across an era of wars, famines, and economic shifts) is a massive leap. In fact, it’s about as reliable as guessing how the internet feels about a topic from a single tweet.

This immediately tells me that whatever numbers they claim for the bottom 40% of the population are, at best, speculative. At worst? Utterly meaningless.

It also raises another question: What kind of serious journal would let something like this slide? So, time to pull up the actual article and see what’s going on.

Step 3: Check the Sources

As I mentioned earlier, the source for this graph is conveniently listed at the bottom of the image. Three clicks later, I had downloaded the actual article: “The Income Inequality of France in Historical Perspective” by Morrisson and Snyder.

The first thing I noticed while skimming through the article? The graph itself is nowhere to be found in the publication.

This is important. It means the person who created the graph didn’t just lift it straight from the article—they derived it from the data in the publication. Now, that’s not necessarily a problem; secondary analysis of published data is common. But here’s the kicker: there’s no explanation in the screenshot of the graph about which dataset or calculations were used to make it. We’re left to guess.

So, to figure this out, I guess I’ll have to dive into the article itself, trying to identify where they might have pulled the numbers from. Translation: I signed myself up to read 20+ pages of economic history. Thrilling stuff.

But hey, someone has to do it. The things I endure to fight disinformation...

Step 4: Actually Assess the Sources Critically

It doesn’t take long, once you start reading the article, to realise that regardless of what the graph is based on, it’s bound to be somewhat unreliable. Right from the first paragraph, the authors of the paper point out the core issue with calculating income for 18th-century French households: THERE IS NO DATA.

The article is refreshingly honest about this. It states multiple times that there were no reliable income distribution estimates in France before World War II. To fill this gap, Morrisson and Snyder used a variety of proxy sources like the Capitation Tax Records (2), historical socio-professional tables, and Isnard’s income distribution estimates (3).

After reading the whole paper, I can say their methodology is intriguing and very reasonable. They’ve pieced together what they could by using available evidence, and their process is quite well thought-out. I won’t rehash their entire argument here, but if you’re curious, I’d genuinely recommend giving it a read.

Most importantly, the authors are painfully aware of the limitations of their approach. They make it very clear that their estimates are a form of educated guesswork—evidence-based, yes, but still guesswork.   At no point do they overstate their findings or present their conclusions as definitive

As such,  instead of concluding with a single, definitive version of the income distribution, they offer multiple possible scenarios.

It’s not as flashy as a bold, tidy graph, is it? But it’s far more honest—and far more reflective of the complexities involved in reconstructing historical economic data.

Step 5: Run the numbers

Now that we’ve established the authors of the paper don’t actually propose a definitive income distribution, the question remains: where did the creators of the graph get their data? More specifically, which of the proposed distributions did they use?

Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to locate the original article or post containing the graph. Admittedly, I haven’t tried very hard, but the first few pages of Google results just link back to Twitter, Reddit, Facebook, and Tumblr posts. In short, all I have to go on is this screenshot.

I’ll give the graph creators the benefit of the doubt and assume that, in the full article, they explain where they sourced their data. I really hope they do—because they absolutely should.

That being said, based on the information in Morrisson and Snyder’s paper, I’d make an educated guess that the data came from Table 6 or Table 10, as these are the sections where the authors attempt to provide income distribution estimates.

Now, which dataset does the graph use? Spoiler: None of them.

How can we tell? Since I don’t have access to the raw data or the article where this graph might have been originally posted, I resorted to a rather unscientific method: I used a graphical design program to divide each bar of the chart into 2.5% increments and measure the approximate percentage for each income group.

Here’s what I found:

Now, take a moment to spot the issue. Do you see it?

The problem is glaring: NONE of the datasets from the paper fit the graph. Granted, my measurements are just estimates, so there might be some rounding errors. But the discrepancies are impossible to ignore, particularly for the bottom 40% and the top 10%.

In Morrisson and Snyder’s paper, the lowest estimate for the bottom 40% (1st and 2nd quintiles) is 10%. Even if we use the most conservative proxy, the Capitation Tax estimate, it’s 9%. But the graph claims the bottom 40% held only 6%.

For the top 10% (10th decile), the highest estimate in the paper is 53%. Yet the graph inflates this to 60%.

Step 6: For fun, I made my own bar charts

Because I enjoy this sort of thing (yes, this is what I consider fun—I’m a very fun person), I decided to use the data from the paper to create my own bar charts. Here’s what came out:

What do you notice?

While the results don’t exactly scream “healthy economy,” they look much less dramatic than the graph we started with. The creators of the graph have clearly exaggerated the disparities, making inequality seem worse.

Step 7: Understand the context before drawing conclusions

Numbers, by themselves, mean nothing. Absolutely nothing.

I could tell you right now that 47% of people admit to arguing with inanimate objects when they don’t work, with printers being the most common offender, and you’d probably believe it. Why? Because it sounds plausible—printers are frustrating, I’ve used a percentage, and I’ve phrased it in a way that sounds “academic.”

You likely wouldn’t even pause to consider that I’m claiming 3.8 billion people argue with inanimate objects. And let’s be real: 3.8 billion is such an incomprehensibly large number that our brains tend to gloss over it.

If, instead, I said, “Half of your friends probably argue with their printers,” you might stop and think, “Wait, that seems a bit unlikely.” (For the record, I completely made that up—I have no clue how many people yell at their stoves or complain to their toasters.)

The point? Numbers mean nothing unless we put them into context.

The original paper does this well by contextualising its estimates, primarily through the calculation of the Gini coefficient (4).

The authors estimate France’s Gini coefficient in the late 18th century to be 0.59, indicating significant income inequality. However, they compare this figure to other regions and periods to provide a clearer picture:

Amsterdam (1742): Much higher inequality, with a Gini of 0.69.

Britain (1759): Lower inequality, with a Gini of 0.52, which rose to 0.59 by 1801.

Prussia (mid-19th century): Far less inequality, with a Gini of 0.34–0.36.

This comparison shows that income inequality wasn’t unique to France. Other regions experienced similar or even higher levels of inequality without spontaneously erupting into revolution.

Accounting for Variations

The authors also recalculated the Gini coefficient to account for potential variations. They assumed that the income of the top quintile (the wealthiest 20%) could vary by ±10%. Here’s what they found:

If the top quintile earned 10% more, the Gini coefficient rose to 0.66, placing France significantly above other European countries of the time.

If the top quintile earned 10% less, the Gini dropped to 0.55, bringing France closer to Britain’s level.

Ultimately, the authors admit there’s uncertainty about the exact level of inequality in France. Their best guess is that it was comparable to other countries or somewhat worse.

Step 8: Drawing Some Conclusions

Saying that most people in the 18th century were poor and miserable—perhaps the French more so than others—isn’t exactly a compelling statement if your goal is to gather clicks or make a dramatic political point.

It’s incredibly tempting to look at the past and find exactly what we want to see in it. History often acts as a mirror, reflecting our own expectations unless we challenge ourselves to think critically. Whether you call it wishful thinking or confirmation bias, it’s easy to project the future onto the past.

Looking at the initial graph, I understand why someone might fall into this trap. Simple, tidy narratives are appealing to everyone. But if you’ve studied history, you’ll know that such narratives are a myth. Human nature may not have changed in thousands of years, but the contexts we inhabit are so vastly different that direct parallels are meaningless.

So, is revolution imminent? Well, that’s up to you—not some random graph on the internet.

Notes

(1) A la lanterne was a  revolutionary cry during the French Revolution, symbolising mob justice where individuals were sometimes hanged from lampposts as a form of public execution

(2) The capitation tax was a fixed head tax implemented in France during the Ancien Régime. It was levied on individuals, with the amount owed determined by their social and professional status. Unlike a proportional income tax, it was based on pre-assigned categories rather than actual earnings, meaning nobles, clergy, and commoners paid different rates regardless of their actual wealth or income.

(3) Jean-Baptiste Isnard was an 18th-century economist. These estimates attempted to describe the theoretical distribution of income among different social classes in pre-revolutionary France. Isnard’s work aimed to categorise income across groups like nobles, clergy, and commoners, providing a broad picture of economic disparity during the period.

(4) The Gini coefficient (or Gini index) is a widely used statistical measure of inequality within a population, specifically in terms of income or wealth distribution. It ranges from 0 to 1, where 0 indicates perfect equality (everyone has the same income or wealth), and 1 represents maximum inequality (one person or household holds all the wealth).

[doberbutts]

you don't actually get to cry "ally yourself with trans women" while actively talking over trans women whose traumatic experiences with transmisogyny are wildly ignored in favor of how hard transmisogyny is on the cis women. like why don't trans women get to say privilege plays into how much transmisogyny affects people?

do we not characterize white privilege as being what protects white americans from the systematic racism that permeates the US?

again, what is the preferred way you would have us refer to that privilege? because I am right here telling you that privilege is a part of the construct of tme/tma but you don't really care that trans women are more affected.

like it's crazy that you seem to think my problem is with the transvestigation playing out against a cis woman and not the way everyone pays attention when it happens to cis women but ignores the rampant transmisogyny when it happens to a trans woman. like you don't even pause to look at why there were no trans women at the olympics to transvestigate in the first place so they turned to the next marginalized option, intersex and women of color, when discussing how trans women deserve better.

Hi I'm the trans woman I deserve better from you specifically

To be completely honest this is looking less and less like a good faith discussion and more and more like you simply accusing me of stuff I didn't say.

You say I am actively talking over trans women. How so? How is "we need to address transmisogyny at its root if we want things to be better" ignoring the plight of trans women?

How is it that I have *repeatedly* acknowledged that there is privilege there, and yet apparently I am ignoring it?

if you want to use the race example: white privilege exists. Racism also affects white people. If white people want to stop being affected by racism (welfare regulations, the war on drugs, low income housing, social programs for community aid, to name a few) then maybe they should ally themselves with people of color because the root of what's causing issues with these things is racism. That doesn't mean white privilege doesn't exist just because a system of oppression affects everyone under said system. It doesn't even mean that the primary target has changed. It's just what makes this a system rather than an individual occurrence.

Never once have I said that cis women are more affected and, in fact, in followup posts I have stated that it *is* quite annoying that people have only been talking about this because this year's Olympics included approximately 0 out trans women. I have been saying that this was the clear end result, once they were rid of the trans women they'd go for whatever cis women they could feasibly get away with, and this time it seems they overplayed their hand.

Castor Semenya is a cis woman who only found out that she is intersex due to being transvestigated. She is, by definition, TME. Except she's not, is she, considering the same rules that apply to trans women apply to her. That's why I brought her up! And- correct me if I'm wrong- but out trans women still competed after she was forced to leave the Olympic running. That is why I'm saying that things maybe are not quite so clear cut as "have" and "have not", because I can point to an example of someone that the definition labels as "has privilege" that according to Olympic ruling bodies no longer counts as a woman either despite being afab TME cis.

If you want to continue to put words in my mouth, then we're out of things to say to each other, and it becomes clear that this was never intended to be a good faith discussion in the first place.

[globalnewscollective]

The War on Diversity: How the U.S. Government is Encouraging Attacks on Schools and Workplaces

Imagine a government portal where people can anonymously report schools and workplaces for promoting diversity. It sounds dystopian, but it’s now reality. The Trump administration has launched a public complaint system aimed at dismantling Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives in schools and workplaces. (Source: Reuters)

What’s Happening?

A new federal portal allows individuals to file complaints against institutions that support DEI programs.

The goal? To target and eliminate initiatives that promote racial and gender equity in education and employment.

Conservative lawmakers and activists claim DEI programs are discriminatory against white Americans, while civil rights groups argue that this is a direct attack on efforts to level the playing field.

How Does This Affect You?

Schools and Universities Under Threat – Programs aimed at supporting marginalized students could face defunding or cancellation. Scholarships, mentorships, and inclusive curricula are at risk.

Workplace Diversity Efforts in Danger – Companies could scale back diversity hiring practices, making it harder for women and minorities to break into competitive fields.

Chilling Effect on Free Speech – Schools and businesses may avoid discussions on race and gender for fear of being reported, limiting education and open dialogue.

Increased Discrimination – Without DEI policies, hiring, promotions, and educational opportunities could revert to favoring privileged groups, widening social and economic disparities.

What’s at Stake?

Diversity initiatives exist to correct historical injustices and ensure equal opportunities. The systematic targeting of DEI efforts is not about fairness—it’s about reinforcing existing power structures.

The idea that white Americans are being discriminated against because of DEI is a false narrative used to justify dismantling progress. Without these initiatives, students from marginalized backgrounds lose resources, workplaces become less inclusive, and society moves backward instead of forward.

The Bigger Picture

This move is part of a broader rollback of civil rights protections. Combined with attacks on affirmative action, restrictions on discussing race in classrooms, and censorship of inclusive educational materials, the U.S. is heading toward an era where diversity is actively suppressed rather than encouraged.

If this campaign succeeds, the effects will be felt for generations. Without intervention, marginalized groups will find it harder to access education, secure jobs, and have their voices heard.

What Can You Do?

Raise Awareness – Share the facts about why DEI is important and debunk misinformation.

Support Organizations Fighting for Equality – Civil rights groups need public backing now more than ever.

Pressure Lawmakers – Call on representatives to protect DEI initiatives and resist attacks on diversity.

Encourage Inclusive Policies in Workplaces and Schools – Employers and educators should continue DEI efforts despite government pushback.

America has long claimed to be a land of opportunity, but that opportunity is now under siege. Without DEI, the doors that have only just begun to open for women, minorities, and marginalized communities may slam shut once again. The question is: Will we let that happen?

Source:

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-launches-end-dei-portal-public-complaints-about-diversity-schools-2025-02-28/

[havoc-7]

I wasn’t a die-hard Tech Lives believer (more of a “I HOPE Tech Lives” believer) but the end of the show has me grieving hard all over again, so here’s my little ode to Tech based on things I’ve noticed about him from rewatching the show:

Tech LOVES his brothers, and he genuinely misses Crosshair. When he has his heart to heart with Omega in the ipsium cavern, the way that he mentions Crosshair—even though that wasn’t even really what they were discussing—shows how often Crosshair is on his mind, so much so that he can’t really talk about people leaving and changing without bringing him up. When they get the Plan 88 from Crosshair, Tech is vocal and insistent about doing whatever they can to bring Crosshair back—because “he is still our brother.”

Tech is incredibly moral. Not that he’s any more moral than I think generally TBB is, but he’s not afraid to speak up when he sees something that he disagrees with fundamentally. “The systematic termination of the Jedi is a big one for me.” “There’s a fundamental different between taking fire in battle and being used for target practice.” Even in just the first episode, we see how firm his opinions are, based on what he believes: that people are people, that HIS BROTHERS are people, that they deserve better, that there is such a thing as right and wrong.

Tech may be practical, but that doesn’t make him any less crazy than his brothers—in fact, I would argue he is one of the more unhinged members of the bad batch. His plans and ideas see everything factually, factoring in risk not as an emotional factor but as a numerical one. He knows their skills, and what they are capable of, and he pushes them to those capabilities, even if the resulting strategy is absolutely insane. The best part is, as insane as he may be, his brothers trust him, because, as Tech himself said, he is seldom wrong.

Tech has a beautiful sense of wonder and awe for the world around him. How many times do we see him go wide-eyed as he encounters something that absolutely fascinates him—even if that thing is a Zillo beast that just ate an entire Imperial crew.

Tech is INSANE. Not unhinged, like I said earlier, but skill-wise, ability-wise, he is an absolute powerhouse. I will forever be grateful to the writers of TBB who gave us a techy, intelligent character who is not your average scrawny computer guy that we get in action movies. You have to have a lot of guts to be the guy in your squad who turns your back on the fight to bend over a computer and hack into a file or break an encryption or alter the programming—already a delicate operation, but with the added risk of getting shot with your back turned. He frickin wields double blasters so that he can shoot more clankers more efficiently (if that’s not practical Tech, I don’t know what is). He DOESN’T WEAR LEG ARMOR SO THAT HE CAN CARRY HIS TOOLS WITH HIM INTO THE FIELD. In “Faster,” we see his hand inching towards his blaster, ready to defend and protect the second it’s necessary—and you know he would’ve beaten anyone to the draw. He fought a group of Imperial troopers!!! With a broken leg!!!!!

Tech was amazing, and I hate that he’s dead, that we never got to see him grow old, that he never saw Crosshair again. But WHAT A LIFE HE LIVED.

[from-the-coffee-shop-in-edoras]

May I get your thoughts, opinions, and ideas on Èowyn's reaction to the situation she found in with Grima? Do you think it was at all possible that Théodred and/or Éomer, realizing the danger she was specifically in, tried to send her away someplace safer, away from Edoras, and she said no because she refused to leave them and her Uncle? I don't think it was discussed extensively in the book how it all went down in the decline of Théoden's health and household, but I know you've thought about it. Would you be willing to share your headcanons? 😊

Personally I know Grima is a creep with considerable influence, but I've also had trouble thinking of Èowyn has a caged bird with zero power surrounding her own fate. True, she was limited in what she could do and in how people perceived her, but I could never see her as helpless. I always thought she was more trapped in her own depression and discontentment. 🤷‍♀️ Grima would certainly never have been able to physically overpower her. Was the danger to her really just that her loved ones might be stripped away from her?

Again I guess I just have a hard time thinking of Théodred and Èomer not keeping a closer watch over her and taking extra steps to keep her safe, if they realized that she was a target.

Sorry for the rambling! 😂 I know you can explain your own thoughts in a more organized way that I do!

My answer to this got MUCH longer than I expected. I found that I had to kind of walk through it systematically to make it (hopefully) clear, and that made it very long. Sorry!! 😬 (Also, this answer is all rooted in the books, not films.)

As in most situations in life, I think the dynamics here are nuanced, complicated and sometimes contradictory. It would have been much more straightforward if all Éowyn had to worry about was herself, if she (or others) had the unfettered freedom to act in accordance with what was best for her, and if there weren’t social/cultural expectations that worked against her interests. But that wasn’t the deal at the time.

As a threshold matter, I 100% agree that I cannot see Éowyn as helpless and weak, because we know she wasn’t. She was smart, strong, trained to fight and incredibly brave. If Gríma had eventually tried to cross some invisible line that she had devised for herself, there’s no way he could have physically overpowered her without significant outside help. But even though I think she could have flattened him in a one-on-one fight, I don’t think that advantage would have helped her much in her day to day life, because hurting or killing him wasn’t a realistic way to deal with the threat he posed.

When we meet him, Gríma has quite a lot of power. He has Théoden’s clear support (not obtained through clean means, but he has it nonetheless), and he operates with the king’s authority, uses his resources and issues orders in his name. To mess with Gríma, then, is to mess with the will of the king, and that’s illegal and even treasonous. If you take that step, it could mean severe punishment, including imprisonment or death. And being a member of the royal family wouldn’t necessarily protect you from that (see: Éomer getting unceremoniously jailed later in the story). So I don’t find it surprising that Éowyn (or others) would not have chosen to take on Gríma directly at the time of the story, given that it still wasn’t entirely clear exactly how evil his larger plan was and he hadn’t yet acted on his designs on her beyond being a super creepy perv who watched and followed her.

But if she couldn’t get away with harming or threatening Gríma, why didn’t she just flee instead? This is less clear but there are several potential explanations. For one, she may not have seen that as possible. If it was Théoden’s expectation that she be his nursemaid, then again, she can’t just ignore the will of her king. We don’t explicitly know if that’s the case, but he certainly didn’t seem to consider literally anyone else as a possible substitute for the care she gave (definitely not one of the boys!!). Also, let’s not forget Gandalf’s words from the Houses of Healing, where he questions whether Gríma only spoke poison into the ears of Théoden. If he instead also filled Éowyn’s mind with despairing, hopeless thoughts, he might have caused her to believe that she was irrevocably trapped. Given how desperately unhappy and imperiled she was, it seems plausible that she would have tried to run if she could, and the fact that she didn’t may suggest that she literally couldn’t or at least didn’t think that she could.

But let’s say she could have left and perceived herself as having that choice. There are still numerous reasons why she might have stayed. As you note, she presumably loved Théoden as an uncle and surrogate father and showed him a lot of loyalty and devotion. She would hardly be the first person to knowingly and willingly keep themselves in a position of danger, vulnerability and unhappiness out of concern for someone who would be left behind if they fled. So, that’s also very plausible.

Even if she had no personal affection for Théoden, though, it’s possible that she’d have been reluctant to leave him anyway. It’s worth remembering that Théodred and Éomer didn’t live in Edoras — they were based in Helm’s Deep and Aldburg, respectively, and the urgent press of duties there often kept them away. So Éowyn was the only member of the royal family to be always present with Théoden, able to keep a continuous eye on what was happening and to try to do what she could to counteract the negative daily influence of Gríma. She probably felt a sense of duty to be there, even at the cost of exposing herself to harm and finding the whole thing hateful and degrading. (Note that she DOES try to leave once Théoden is healed and she doesn’t have the duty to watch him anymore!)

Now, if her concerns were about caring for Théoden and/or blunting Gríma’s influence, there were ways to try to mitigate those concerns while still allowing her to flee, most notably by finding someone else who could step into her role. But who? Your choices are 1) someone who wasn’t in the royal family and thus was arguably in an even weaker position relative to Gríma than Éowyn was; or 2) Théodred or Éomer, who would have to give up their marshal duties to come back to Edoras full time even as conditions in the East- and West-marks were significantly deteriorating.

I can (and do) hate that Éowyn, as the female royal who lacked any other formal role within Rohan’s political and military structure, got stuck with the perilous nursemaid duties just because she was, for lack of a better word, available. I can (and do) stipulate that it was quite convenient for Théodred and Éomer that Éowyn was there and could be counted on to put her misery aside and handle things at home so that they could keep doing what they were doing. But I also acknowledge the reality and seriousness of the tasks Théodred and Éomer were undertaking — things that were central to the protection and safety of the kingdom overall and that could have been substantially harmed by the need to stop and return to Edoras. All those statements can be true at once. I don’t think Théodred and Éomer set out to disadvantage Éowyn because she was a girl, but in practice she was disadvantaged for that reason because they had official jobs that she did not and a crush of external pressures heightened the stakes of every decision such that no one felt comfortable casting aside all those formal jobs and normal ways of doing things to try a different, novel approach.

My personal interpretation of the characters’ choices is that Éowyn loved Théoden and felt a duty to Rohan. For that reason, she wasn’t going to leave him on his own in that state, no matter how unhappy, afraid or angry she was. She was also depressed, isolated and probably influenced by Gríma not to trust the other people around her. So the only way she would have agreed to give up that duty and flee was if one of the only two people she did trust — Théodred or Éomer — was back in Edoras to take the duty in her stead. But I don’t think she ever really expected that to happen because, you know, that’s just not how things worked. Marshals of the Mark had their own urgent duties and obligations, and I don’t think it’s especially likely that she expected her cousin or brother to upend established norms that way even if she wished for it. She was, sadly, resigned to this fate.

As for Théodred and Éomer, I think those two judged that the threat of catastrophic violence in the East and West was sufficiently high that they couldn’t abandon their commands to deal with the situation in Edoras. They instead took the very significant and calculated risk to have Éowyn handle Edoras even though she was both terribly unhappy and in danger there — not because they didn’t love her or worry about her but because they simply felt themselves to be without any choice and weren’t yet able to think enough outside of the box they were raised in to see another alternative. I think they trusted her and probably took some comfort in knowing that she had the training, skills and bravery to act at need, and I think they also enlisted the secondary help of other folks in Edoras who could keep a close watch on their behalf and come to Éowyn’s aid if events ever seemed to be getting beyond her control. Among these would be Háma and Elfhelm, both of whom are canonically fond of Éowyn, supportive of her, and close enough to be on hand in an emergency.

I would have made different choices myself, but I can see why they all made the choices they did even as I disagree. Again, all their options were bad and came with big risks. You can’t have a royal family member keeping an eye on Théoden and Gríma AND have the marshals of the Mark preventing the collapse of Rohan’s borders AND get Éowyn out of that dangerous and hateful position in Edoras. At best, you can do 2 out of those 3 at any one time. That is not an enviable place to be.

FWIW, I do think that a change in strategy was imminent in February 3019. Our heroes were going to have to become willing to do something that was previously unthinkable if they were going to overcome Gríma’s advantages (namely, his willingness to play dirty). Maybe that means murdering Gríma in an act of vigilante justice, no matter the consequence. Maybe that’s pushing Théoden from the throne since he wasn’t ruling competently. But I think they were coming to understand that SOMETHING had to change. We see in UT that it was getting increasingly common for Théodred and others to act without orders in order to thwart Gríma’s intent, and it’s a short walk from “I’m not waiting for orders” to “I don’t follow the orders you give” to “I no longer recognize your authority at all.” Perhaps even Gríma and Saruman could see this dynamic coming into shape, which is why they murdered Théodred in an attempt to head it off. So it’s possible things for Éowyn might have changed at some point soon, though we’ll never know exactly how because the unexpected arrival of Gandalf changed everything!

I’m SO SORRY that got so long. I hope ANY of it was useful at all! And of course, this is just my own two cents. There are plenty of other valid interpretations, and some of those may suit you better!

[22degreehalo]

The thing with like aphobia and transandrophobia and stuff is like

sometimes. you are going to see people complaining about oppression. and it's going to make you feel bad and uncomfortable. because you yourself are oppressed and in these circles you are used to being The Oppressed One and seeing these other complains about People Including You reminds you of actual bigotry in broader spaces, or makes you doubt your own oppression, or just makes it feel like you're being told you 'have it easy'.

but. that's not what's happening. what's happening is just that other people also have systematic problems and deserve to talk about it.

that is not an attack on you.

oppression is not a zero-sum game. Aspecs, or trans men, being better acknowledge as suffering from oppression, does not mean that you have it any less bad than you have known yourself to do.

it doesn't even mean that they have it 'worse'. It means exactly what I said: that they also have issues that they need help with and are worth discussing.

If that upsets the basis of your own understand of your oppression... yeah. maybe that means your understanding was wrong. sorry.

but it's only the THEORETICAL UNDERSTANDING that has been upset. your oppression is still not in any kind of question.

is that easy to understand or carry forth? no.

but it's necessary.

and it has happened, over and over again. When gay people and trans people were at head to head, both presenting the other as predatory sexual deviants and themselves as 'normal'. When gay men diminished lesbians' suffering because they were less likely to get on the news for being murdered than gay men. when bisexuals (within Tumblr's own history!!!!!!) were widely panned as possessing 'straight-passing privilege' and therefore never in the same 'category' of oppression as gay men and lesbians.

it happens over and over and over again. and it's always hard. but it always needs to happen, morally.

even if the people expressing their oppression are 'too aggressive'. even if their arguments make you feel uncomfortable and scared. even if the place you belonged no longer feels like home anymore.

it'd be nice if every time something happened that made you feel bad, it was because of somebody Bad who needs to be Stopped and/or Punished. but that just isn't the case.

an oppressed group (and we can judge this by statistics; it's really not that difficult) talking about their oppression is not causing actual harm to you. and even if they were, they still deserve to be able to do it.

[anneapocalypse]

No way in hell I am making this rebloggable lmao but one of the things I find the most frustrating about Anders Discourse™ is when people will say Anders Was Right and then totally refuse to engage with even the possibility that there was collateral damage in the Chantry explosion, insisting that the only people who could possibly have been killed or injured in the blast were Elthina and a handful of clerics who also deserved it, and any numbers Inquisition may have stated about the death toll are retcons meant to make Anders look bad.

When... you can see flaming debris raining down on the rest of the city. In the game. Lowtown is on fire. in the game. DA2 may not have given us numbers, but it's canon that there was collateral damage! You can see it! With your eyes!

But if you point this out, you're assumed to be an Anders Hater who is Anti Mage Rights and thinks Anders was unilaterally wrong.

When actually, I think that not only can you acknowledge the damage and still sympathize with Anders' actions in-universe, I think that any argument about the justification or necessity of his attack on the Chantry (including of course his many attempts at nonviolent or less violent resistance that preceded it, the failure of those attempts, the systematic dismantling of the Mage Underground over the course of years, Meredith's call for the Right of Anullment before the attack had occurred, the many ways in which the mages of Kirkwall had been so utterly beaten down and backed into a corner that there was no effective means of nonviolent resistance left to them!) should acknowledge the collateral damage to Kirkwall including the commoners and elves of Kirkwall, and should be interested in discussing what this means in the larger context of all that other stuff I said in the parentheses.

What do we gain from scrubbing this choice clean of undesirable consequences, from pretending that the path to freedom isn't messy, from pretending that the interests of marginalized people in this fantasy world don't ever come into conflict with one another? And what do we lose?

[rouge-the-bat]

it weird how so many people seem to act like oppression is the only struggle thats worth discussion. if someone tries pointing out something that negatively affects certain groups and put a label to it- regardless of if they make any statements on if its oppression or not- others have to jump in being like "uhmmm but thats not systematic oppression so you should shut up maybe. other groups have it worse"

like first off, why is oppression the end-all-be-all for discussions and other forms of bigotry/prejudices arent worthy to be talked about and are fine to be dismissed and belittled as less important (or even nonexistent), and shouldnt even have a term to label the specific issues around it? or if it IS oppression thats being talked about, then this is all just coming down to oppression olympics and treating certain groups like theyre the ones that have it worse and thus are the only ones we should be focusing on (and silencing everyone else and making their struggles more invisible). either way its severely fucked up

discussions about different groups issues arent a competition. people can care about multiple issues, and we dont have to try proving who has it worse than others and instead we can just. try to help anyone who is struggling.

additionally, oppression and prejudices arent cut and dry and generally affect multiple groups in the same or varying ways. groups sharing their stories about how something also affects them isnt trying to steal spotlight from the original group. it means yall have a common enemy, a common struggle (that may vary in similarity) to work against and speak out about.

if you feel groups are trying to take over the conversation, you should question whether someone is truly trying to drown out your voice and change the topic, or is just trying to add to the conversation and give more/alternate perspectives on what harm something causes, and build community for yall to work together and support each other. are your struggles completely losing focus in the conversation, or has extra perspectives simply been added, and your struggles are still in discussion? much less people are being/acting maliciously than it may seem, which can be especially hard to realize by those whove been repeatedly hurt by others.

please remember its better for different groups to support and listen to one another, back each other up, and fight their common or different enemies together. arguing about who has it worse and driving sharp lines between groups and their experiences, trying to cut out their similarities, only helps those who want to harm BOTH groups.

[justatalkingface]

In Lack Of Defense to Aizawa

-And to varying extents literally every other UA staff member, and basiclly anyone in any sort of authority or who just exists in MHA at all.

Something I saw recently (when I started this post, months ago, anyways) that kind of pissed me of (that I'm posting here, with no connections to where it happened, because it was on a nice fic I like and I don't want to bring crap into the comments just because I don't agree with the author's view on something) is the idea that Aizawa is... how do I put this, more excusable because he doesn't know the full story behind Izuku and Bakugou.

And... to some extent, that isn't wrong, is the thing. He doesn't know that Bakugou systematically made Izuku's life hell, so he can't be expected to react to it (you can question how he would react to it, and that's a completely fair thing to be concerned about, all things considered, though that isn't the point of all this)... but. The thing is, he can be expected to react to what he does know/see, and that's the vastly justifiable criticism of him as a teacher comes from.

Day One: Bakugou attacks Izuku for.... existing with a Quirk. And here's the thing, Aizawa does stop that, but Izuku, and most people who read the story, phrase that as, 'Aizawa stopped Bakugou! Good job Aizawa!'. That's not the right response. The right response is: Aizawa stopped Bakugou, as is his literal job; it's not something that should be acknowledged as unique or impressive. Aizawa being the only person in Izuku's life to stop Bakugou is not glowing praise for Aizawa, it's blistering condemnation for everyone else. Not letting your students try to kill each in front of you is, in fact, the bare fucking minimum.

And here's the where the problem starts: Aizawa does that... and nothing else. Good Old 'Expel 'Em All' Aizawa watches a student attack a fellow student in front of him (after, for the record, sabotaging the same student in the race by blasting him with his explosions, which... is also something that, at least, should be something discussed, if not be summarily expelled over, since being happy is expulsion worthy in Aizawa Land, or being someone that reminds him of All Might) and his response is complaining that Bakugou is making him do more work. Which. You know, is bad. He doesn't even scold Bakugou, or warn him, or do anything to punish him for this.

'You're giving me dry eye, damn it!'

Yes. Because, when one student attacks another, that is the concerning point. How it inconveniences you.

(For the record, I'll touch on all the other problems with this chunk of time, which are present but not actually on target for this post, just to be thorough: doing this test at all, when they already passed, doing it on day one, doing it, apparently, because they were excited and/or because he reminded Eraserhead of All Might, threatening to expel Izuku for daring to not having control of his Quirk, being proud he only broke one finger, not doing anything to help him stop breaking his bones, teaching his students that he'll only lie to them by his whole, 'Logical Ruse' bit, (which if anything should make his threats have less bite when he fails to follow through on them every time), and sabotaging the score when, as I've discussed before, there's no way Toru, at the very least, could outperform Izuku on a test around the physical abilities of her Quirk when her Quirk is invisibility.... a test that, for extra hypocrite points, he couldn't have passed as a student.)

Day Two: Bakugou actually tries to murder Izuku in a training exercise. And I say murder deliberately; All Might explained what would happen if he hit Izuku with his gauntlet, and doesn't even argue with that assessment, instead saying, 'He won't die if he dodges!'.

In other words, Bakugou is saying, 'He'll die if I hit him!'

The next day, after reviewing the test, Aizawa says.... 'Bakugou, stop acting like a seven year old.'

Not: we're taking away your gauntlets until you can use them responsibly. Not: killing people is wrong. Not: disobey a teacher again and I'll expel you. Not: Any form of punishment or disciplinary action for, again, an actual murder attempt.

Grow up.

...Do you see where the problem is here?

Beyond this point, there's god knows how many times Bakugou yells at and/or attacks Izuku for Reasons(TM) throughout their entire school life, none of which is actually hidden from anyone, culminating in the Final Exam where Aizawa admits they have problems working together.... which is, in itself, phrasing that puts the burden as much on Izuku as it does on Bakugou. That is, needless to say, bullshit: the problem is completely on Bakugou's side, because Izuku would be pathetically grateful to his abuser if they could work together, and he constantly does his best to make that happen, no matter how often that never actually works for him.

This phrasing fits Aizawa's 'solution', which is to pair them together for their exam against All Might, again putting the burden for Bakugou's attitude on Izuku rather than dealing with it himself, with the (again, lied about) consequences of not going with the rest of the class on their summer outing, along with probably being closer to flunking out of school. This attitude culminates, ultimately, in BvD2, where Bakugou does everything to start the fight, including launching the first blow, Izuku is defending himself, yet they are both held equally responsible.

So. In Aizawa Land, if I walk up to someone with a crowbar, start hitting them, and they hit me back so I don't crack their skull open, we're both to blame for the fight; after all, they hit me, right? Seriously. Has he arrested civilians for fighting back against people trying to rob/rape/murder them? Because under this logic? The victim is just as much to blame as the robber/rapist/murder.

Alright, so as much as these posts are generally scathing criticisms, I do strive to be somewhat fair. All of these points? All of these points apply to All Might. And to Nezu. And Midnight. And Present Mic. And Class 1A. And Class 1B. And... you know what, let me sum it up: this applies to everyone who has seen Bakugou and Izuku interact, and went, 'Aww..., they're rivals!'. Which. Is basiclly every named character with any screen time, barring maybe the original version of Best Jeanist, before he became an empty shell whose only job is to praise Bakugou.

This isn't a unique problem. This is a Bakugou Problem. This is because no one can hold Bakugou accountable for anything he does, ever, and because of his quantum characterization, Bakugou lives in a consequence free reality where he says and does one thing, and literally the entire world goes selectively blind to act like he did something else entirely. It makes him come out of every situation smelling like roses, even if he spent the entire time bathing in shit, and it makes everyone around him pay the price for him instead. I'm only focusing on Aizawa for one reason: because the fandom worships him.

People love the Kakashi replacement more than they did the original model, and unlike Bakugou this isn't contentious; Bakugou may be more popular but Eraserhead's love is far more universal.

Dadzawa, despite being blatant falsehoods, is the most common take on him, but it's not even that that sparked this rant; it's that people look at him as an actual, flawed, person who makes mistakes, but refuse to go to the next logical step on those mistakes because he's 'doing his best'.

Because he's not.

He has never done his best, because he is falling asleep in class. There is no way for me to look at this disaster, sleeping in class, threatening his students, constantly eroding their trust in his words, and think, 'he's doing his best', because he isn't.

'Doing your best' means, basiclly, you never could have done this, because of some inability, but your trying anyways. All Might is trying his best, because he doesn't know how to teach at all (now that he's done training up Izuku, anyways). He's failing, yes, but he's clearly trying.

Aizawa isn't, because he's not trying. Unlike All Might, he can teach, is the thing, he's just choosing not too. Once in a blue moon, when the school administration puts it's baleful eye on him he actually does teach; he did help Momo and Shoto, for example. Problem being, he only did it then, when he was forced to test them, instead of... any time before their exam (while still somehow missing Shoto's entire everything at the same time, which is failure on such a enormous level it's kind of impressive). Then, of course, there's his mini-me, who he took from a skinny branch of a scrub to being able to use his combat scarf proficiently in battle, an absurdly exotic weapon who having an even a basic mastery must have taken months of difficult, intensive training. If Aizawa was 'trying his best', he'd be doing that teaching... you know, at all, basiclly and not when he's being held at professional gun point, or when it's for his one favorite who isn't even in his class.

Aizawa isn't doing his best, he's doing the absolute minimum he can to keep this position.

And just... look. I get that he's tired. I get he has two full time jobs. I get that that's easily the most sympathetic emotion for basiclly everyone these days, that everyone can vibe to existential exhaustion on a soul deep level. But the thing is, every Hero teacher we've seen, period, is an actual Hero. Beyond Aizawa, the only person we see having trouble with that is All Might who is, A, a new teacher, B, canonly shit with his time management and has a long, storied history of overdoing it, and C, is missing most of his internal organs. Forget teaching, every morning the man wakes up vaguely surprised he's still alive! All Might has a great excuse for being tired and overworked. Everyone else? Everyone is also working two jobs, with Present Mic working three, and still handling it a lot better than Eraserhead is.

No one made Eraserhead come in the next day after being brutally beaten to the point where he had permanent damage and was still covered in bandages, which probably set back his recovery by weeks, realistically. No one is making him work so hard he has to take naps in class to stay functional. And yet, he's the only one who can't seem to keep that schedule up.

He chose to have two jobs, and unlike most people with two jobs, he doesn't need them; he's not being a teacher so he can get a steady paycheck and have food to eat, this is a luxury to him, a choice he's willingly making for fun, not to support himself.

What I'm saying is: if the man can't handle being both a full time hero and a full time teacher, then maybe he should stop doing both at the same time. Aizawa being tired doesn't make him a good teacher, it just makes him bad at time management.

[foursaints]

regarding your post about people feeling uncomfortable with reading certain topics i think its quite the opposite of them not realizing its not a material reality. it actually feels too close to home, a bit too real (considering we hear and read about cases every day) and you are aware that it happen to you everyday so it makes you feel uncomfortable to think about. on the other hand topics like murder, war crimes, etc. most people are alienated from them feeling safe that it wont happen to them (now thats a thing that happens only in stories) and reading about doesn't spark the same type of panic.

but also even if that wasn't the case.. what do you think its supposed to happen when somone is uncomfortable? just keep reading, shoving discomfort down their throat because of other people? Yes i understand that there are victims who have survived it and i will try my best to accommodate them and treat them in the way they want to and i will even swallow my discomfort down and read about the experience but that wont change anything. i will still be afraid of the possibility that will happen to me, i will still squirm when i hear about another case and then try to avoid in the places where i go to enjoy myself (like ao3)

also in terms of victims i imagine that as much as there are some who would like to read and write about their experience there are other who would want to distance themselves from the memory. Isn't it just preference at the end of day. why do people must be guilt tripped to to read something they dont want to.

😭 this is of the most braindead annoying messages i’ve ever received on here i’m actually almost impressed. fucking obviously i am not suggesting that CSA victims read triggering material on purpose that would be insane (💀). but my post wasn’t about victims! i was in fact complaining about emptyhead non-survivors who say things precisely like this!

1. describing murder and war crimes as literally “now that’s something that only happens in stories!” is such a glaring indictment of your worldview… these things are realities for everyone living outside of the imperial core. even within the west, if you’re a transwoman of color, if you’re a DV victim, an addict, an unhoused person, or poc and interacting with police– you are not alienated from extreme violence! it’s very real & present experience! for you to say that reading about systematized violence is “safer” because it’s “less real” especially when we are in the middle of a genocide is literally stomach churning 😭. you should go donate to winter relief for gaza and never speak up again

2. not everything is about you! perhaps this is harsh but i do believe that if you haven’t experienced csa/sa (or been close to the issue), then reading about it cannot be “triggering” to you in the same way it would be for, say, someone with actual csa ptsd. you might feel uncomfortable, but you are not in danger of having a trauma response. sensitivity is beautiful, but i think in moments like these you could stand to be a little bit braver, and a little bit more sturdy. nothing fictional can hurt you. feeling discomfort and fear at the contents of a story is not the same as real pain- it is healthy to practice experiencing these emotions through the safe medium of fiction.

so much of this ask is painfully egotistic… but in a naive, almost endearing sort of way? you dismiss others experiences with the wave of a hand: “yes victims but what about my SQUIRMING”, “but what about the mere possibility it might happen to ME”! i want to remind you that i am a csa survivor complaining about the difficulty of discussing these subjects with non-survivors, and you are a non-survivor inserting yourself into this space to ask “what about MY discomfort?”…. well! terrible, violent, undoingly horrific events happen every day! it is not helpful to act like victims of SA are somehow uniquely traumatized in some special, singularly awful way. no “type” of trauma is inherently worse than any another. people survive and recover from all kinds of experiences, and i find this beautiful & empowering, and frequently the subject of great art. it is worth confronting your own personal discomfort (💀) with that art in order to sit with and face the lived reality of those experiences. doing so will help you develop a more complex and empathetic worldview.

not everything is about you! 🙂‍↕️ the imagined possibility of your own pain should not be worth more to you than the lived reality of someone else’s. this ask was exhausting let’s all read averno by louise gluck to calm down

[evidence-based-activism]

WHY do you think the male suicide rate is so high? Has it always been this high, before modern times do you think? Is there anything you think women can do to help with this?

(Also, for the other anons I have received on this topic.)

It's not "so high". (I've also discussed male suicide in the past.)

According to a 2022 review on suicide mortality in the United States [1], there has been a recent (i.e., past couple of decades) rise in overall age-adjusted suicide rates. What this fails to indicate is that this recent rise is still significantly lower than peak suicide rates in the United States in the early 1900s. (So, not a new issue. We don't have reliable data further back than that.) It is also only somewhat higher than the average rates of the mid-to-late 1900s. Furthermore, this same article indicated that, in the past couple of decades, suicide rates increased 35% among men and 93% among women, indicating that this recent rise is definitely not a male-specific issue.

Another review [2] indicates that, worldwide, the age-adjusted suicide rate has been declining over the past several decades.

Other Information

Work has shown that women are more likely to attempt suicide than men, but men are more likely to die by suicide because they choose more lethal means [3]. Some men argue that men are more likely to die by suicide even once you've controlled for means [4]. However, this analysis was limited by a small sample size, preventing age-stratification. A much larger review and meta-analysis of 34 studies found no such sex difference in fatality by suicide method [5]. They did find that older adults are more likely to die than younger adults within each suicide method, which is important since the sex ratio of male-to-female suicides significantly increases with age [6]. In other words, simply comparing fatality rates without controlling for age, as the authors did in [4], does not accurately reflect sex differences in suicides.

Further, while there is limited research on this topic, evidence suggests that male and female victims of completed suicides were equally as intent to die [7]. Further, research on gender differences in "intent to die" in people who attempt suicide is decidedly mixed [8], while some work suggests that men have a greater suicidal intent others suggest no such difference. In addition, gender differences in suicide intent generally do not control for age differences, which, as we have seen, makes such conclusions dubious. There are also serious issues with the labels often used to make such comparisons [9]. Beyond that, misogyny plays a role in people's responses to suicides, potentially making them less likely to label a woman's attempt as "serious" [10]. And, indeed, other work demonstrates that women are more likely than men to repeat a suicide attempt, suggesting their degree of intent is being underestimated [11].

Further, a 2016 systematic review of randomized controlled trials on suicidal interventions [12] found the majority of trials that disaggregated results by gender found no difference in treatment effectiveness between men and women. The few studies that did are hampered by an important limitation: gender-specific sample size. Specifically, the majority of every sample were made up of women; this makes sense because the majority of suicide attempts are made by women. As a result, the male sample size in each study was fairly low, which would limit researchers' ability to identify small treatment effects for men. And this is important, given the effect size of suicide intervention programs is small [13, based on 1125 unique randomized control trials].

Feminism

As I've stated, feminism is a social movement for the liberation/equality of women. Addressing the male suicide rate is not (directly) a feminist issue. (I say directly since, as we've seen, conditions for men often improve with increasing gender equality.)

References under the cut:

Martínez-Alés, G., Jiang, T., Keyes, K. M., & Gradus, J. L. (2022). The recent rise of suicide mortality in the United States. Annual review of public health, 43(1), 99-116.

Naghavi, M. (2019). Global, regional, and national burden of suicide mortality 1990 to 2016: systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. bmj, 364.

Miller, M., Azrael, D., & Barber, C. (2012). Suicide mortality in the United States: the importance of attending to method in understanding population-level disparities in the burden of suicide. Annual review of public health, 33(1), 393-408.

Cibis, A., Mergl, R., Bramesfeld, A., Althaus, D., Niklewski, G., Schmidtke, A., & Hegerl, U. (2012). Preference of lethal methods is not the only cause for higher suicide rates in males. Journal of affective disorders, 136(1-2), 9-16.

Cai, Z., Junus, A., Chang, Q., & Yip, P. S. (2022). The lethality of suicide methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of affective disorders, 300, 121-129.

Suicide. (2025, February). National Institute of Mental Health. https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/suicide

Denning, D. G., Conwell, Y., King, D., & Cox, C. (2000). Method choice, intent, and gender in completed suicide. Suicide and Life‐Threatening Behavior, 30(3), 282-288.

Fox, K. R., Millner, A. J., Mukerji, C. E., & Nock, M. K. (2018). Examining the role of sex in self-injurious thoughts and behaviors. Clinical Psychology Review, 66, 3-11.

Heilbron, N., Compton, J. S., Daniel, S. S., & Goldston, D. B. (2010). The problematic label of suicide gesture: Alternatives for clinical research and practice. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 41(3), 221.

Townsend, H. (2025). “Drama queens” and “attention seekers”: Characterizations of Femininity and Responses to Women Who Communicated their Intent to Suicide. Gender & Society, 39(1), 5-34.

de la Torre-Luque, A., Pemau, A., Ayad-Ahmed, W., Borges, G., Fernandez-Sevillano, J., Garrido-Torres, N., ... & Survive Consortium. (2023). Risk of suicide attempt repetition after an index attempt: A systematic review and meta-analysis. General hospital psychiatry, 81, 51-56.

Krysinska, K., Batterham, P. J., & Christensen, H. (2017). Differences in the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for suicidal ideation and behaviour in women and men: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Archives of suicide research, 21(1), 12-32.

Fox, K. R., Huang, X., Guzmán, E. M., Funsch, K. M., Cha, C. B., Ribeiro, J. D., & Franklin, J. C. (2020). Interventions for suicide and self-injury: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials across nearly 50 years of research. Psychological bulletin, 146(12), 1117.

[granny-griffin]

i guess this is prompted by your conversation with artist-issues today. i'm a bit confused- you said that "I don’t think everybody does mean everybody in the present. And I think pretending that we’ve already achieved racial equality in this country only perpetuates systematic injustice. Because you can’t work to fix a problem you refuse to see." i do see the problem, and i do agree that there are many issues that need addressing. but i don't think that the proper way to address that is through policies and media narratives- i think that's a change that needs to start on a person-to-person level. otherwise it's very easy to slip into racism against non-black demographics. this is another thing you said that i'm confused about: "BUT if the movie was better written and took Sam’s Blackness more directly into account, then he COULD have been a symbol of a new America, where everyone is treated equally."

i don't see how Sam's blackness could have affected the story more? if it did, if you put your emphasis on the color of his skin, isn't that still racism? isn't true non-racism judging people "not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character?"

i just don't understand how by putting /more/ emphasis on Sam's ethnicity, the story could have emphasized that "everyone is equal"- because the story would have then been saying, 'everyone is equal, but some people are more equal than others.'

isn't the point of deconstructing racial bias to make it so that peoples' skin color *isn't* the key part of their identity?

(i'm not saying that culture doesn't matter- but skin color isn't inherently a culture. you can be chinese by blood but been raised in ghana, and not identify with chinese culture- because you were raised in ghanian culture. or you /could/ identify with chinese culture, because that's where you came from genetically- but either way, it's not inherently about how you look.)

i'm not trying to argue or anything. i'm just curious about your pov on this.

hi friend! I’m really honored by the good faith tone of this ask. I’m gonna do my best to provide my thoughts/answer your questions, but there’s a lot of ground to cover here, so feel free to ask clarifying questions or repeat something you think I missed!

Let me start by defining my terms a little—when I talk about racism, I’m talking specifically about hatred that has structural societal backing. Anybody can categorically devaue any other race. But if that attitude isn’t validated and encouraged by our politics and culture, then I wouldn’t call it racism—just individual sin.

I think if we lived in a vacuum, then you would be right. Starting from a clean slate, it would be wrong to treat one race differently from another. But that’s not the situation we’re dealing with; “…after more than three centuries of deliberate, systematic race-based exclusion, the political system that had intentionally disenfranchised black people continued to do so, yet in less overt ways. Simply by allowing the political system to work as it was designed—to grant advantages to white people and to put people of color at various disadvantages—many well-meaning Christians were complicit in racism.” (The Color of Compromise, pg 171)

I do think you’re right that change needs to happen on a person to person level, because all sin starts in the heart. But I think it’s also important to recognize that the sin of the last several hundred years is baked into the way our society is built. If we don’t agknowledge that history in our discussions of our media, then we’re doomed to keep repeating it.

I wanted the movie to agknowledge Sam’s Blackness more, not so that he could dunk on other races, but because I think that making a Black man the Most American Superhero TM sparks an interesting conversation about what it means to be American, since at it’s inception, the American political system disenfranchised Black people.

I do agree that it would be great if we could make it to a post-racial society—where everyone’s ethnic background obviously matters, but we don’t have to worry about systematic race-based discrimination. But I don’t think that we’ve made it there yet. And I think if we try to be color blind in all our discussions, we won’t be able to notice where injustices are happening.

[teyvats-worst-hero]

We Need to Talk About Morality in Media:

a serious discussion with teyvats-worst-hero Moon Spice

Sometimes it feels like nuance is systematically ignored in these large fandoms like the Hoyoverse games.

I definitely have thoughts about a lot of things. Very complicated, often critical thoughts. But I don’t think it’s enough to just…. Write everything off as completely acceptable or completely unacceptable. It all feels very reactionary.

And this isn’t me chickening out and going with the most moderate opinions as though lack of extremity makes the correct option. There are elements of Hoyoverse games that I greatly like or dislike, and I want to be able to express those takes freely without the assumption that I’m “one of them,” the malicious opposing side as determined by whatever camp the reader has decided is fundamentally good and correct.

It’s a thought I have again and again, any time there’s controversy over the games’ merits and failings. Some might say that there’s nothing actually stopping me from posting about these regular controversies. There isn’t. That’s true. But if I’m going to roll the dice for that random chance of disproportionate, overwhelming negativity, it’s not going to be just in reference to Twitter drama over the anime gacha games. It’s going to be a far-reaching critique of current fandom/media culture.

So I’ll just preface this lecture with the following messages— if you believe I’m provoking you specifically, then that’s your feeling to bear. I don’t have anyone specific in mind and don’t intend to be directly inflammatory. I care a lot about having real discussions about these issues and don’t appreciate bad faith.

Feel free to scroll here if this kind of thing stresses you out. This will be very long.

Correlation is not Causation

Do you, reader, genuinely have an understanding of the way fiction does and does not affect reality, or do you function off of assumptions of how people react to it? It’s a correlative relationship. Not causal, not independent. Correlative.

Fiction can affect how we view things in real life, but cannot forcibly change our opinions or our actions. It’s a form of cultural influence. The effect is more pronounced the less experience you have in that topic and the more prevalent that particular trope/message/philosophy is. This is a big reason why children’s media is held to a higher standard of clearly identifiable messaging— they have very little experience in a lot of areas and are still learning what “normal” entails.

It’s also why, for example, mainstream media constantly showing fictional relationships with power imbalances while never acknowledging their potential for abuse is considered a toxic standard, but depicting a relationship containing power-imbalance without acknowledgement of immorality is not in itself a dangerous trope that should be banned. Context is everything, including both the rest of the work and the outside world (which includes past, present, and future alongside cultural considerations).

One creator or a fraction of any fandom enjoying disturbing/morally objectionable content does not carry the weight to constitute a moral panic. It isn’t enough volume of content to “normalize” anything unless it’s supporting a movement that is both popular and leading to real-life harm.

I am absolutely going to get side-eye for this from what I’ve seen, but from the limited interaction I’ve had with fandom spaces in my adulthood, this whole pro-ship anti-ship thing seems to be based on this fundamental misunderstanding. It likely started as a distaste for disturbing ship content (Eg: incest, pedophilic), then evolved into the belief that engaging with this content meant you were similarly predatory, then started including less and less serious dynamics (Eg: a problem with weird age gaps becoming a problem with all age gaps), finally reaching a state in which personal discomfort with a fictional idea is tantamount to real life harm.

As I said, I’m not deeply involved with fandom. But based on the timeline of fandom history, conservative political trends in my country, and my own personal experience, I’d hazard a guess that this way of thinking is based on many young people (20’s and under) holding onto a very… victimized worldview. It’s hard to describe, but there’s a pervasive theme of scary sexual deviants and moral corruption. An overt fixation on protecting innocent eyes that don’t really exist.

When to Be Worried

A more nuanced test of moral concern that I’d offer is whether or not the anticipated audience would assume that the idea behind a part of fiction is:

1. This idea is a reasonable message or authorial intention to interpret from that work

(eg: it’s reasonable to interpret that in a horror movie where promiscuous characters die as a result of sexual activities but virginal characters survive, promiscuity is considered a negative trait. This interpretation is not reasonable if their killer is framed as a dangerous religious extremist.)

2. The idea is true (or partially true) in reality

(eg: you may not assume all women are unfathomably attracted to you because you’re like the stereotypical “losers” that always get the girl, but you may assume that they owe you a chance if you’re nice to them)

3. Acceptable and normal to have within their own social groups, not necessarily in the mainstream

(eg: it’s completely fine for Romani* people to be portrayed as criminals because no one you know has ever batted an eye about it)

*more commonly called “gypsies” in my experience, but this is considered a slur by the members of the community I’ve seen. I’m clarifying here because I’m legitimately not sure if many people would recognize their actual name, but I’m not opposed to censoring it if it’s preferable.

4. Something that they should actively participate in or facilitate

(eg: making or allowing racist remarks, attempting BDSM techniques without proper communication or research)

Pick Your Battles

There’s also a spectrum of how seriously these trends need to be taken on their own. Here’s a little chart I’ve created for the occasion.

(Note: Do not take every pixel of color on this chart as my infallible, fully-formed belief. I literally made this on my phone with my finger.)

The blue section (the intersection of mainstream belief and zero harm) is of least concern. These are the non-issues. Think of the most unoffensive show you can, and this is that.

The red section (the intersection of immediate real-life harm and mainstream belief) is of highest concern, because these ideas are both dangerous enough to directly cause harm and popular enough to actually incite people to act on them.

Notice that both these colors curve up and around to also include the maximum heights of “unanimous immorality.” This is because some things that harm no one are vehemently despised by the culture they appear in, and some things that everyone theoretically hates can, due to cultural complications or lack of control by the general public, still happen.

The center of the chart is yellow. This is where things get… Complicated. There’s the capacity for harm, but it isn’t necessarily immediate or tangible. There’s variable or split opinions on the morality of the idea. This zone is, in my eyes anyway, the origin of “problematic.”

It Both Is and Is Not That Serious

Oftentimes the things that fall into this category aren’t inherently bad, but their unanimity makes them so. Maybe there’s competing representation or access needs at play, or maybe there’s a complicated web of good and bad elements that are hard to separate from one another. Either way, it’s hard to decide how to handle the situation.

So we just… don’t.

By throwing out the baby with the bath water, we avoid the uncomfortable experience of examining the borders of our social justice while reframing our hasty dismissals as being unarguably good— “unarguably” being the key term. But to actually rectify the problems in our media, we have to ask what the complete dismissal of a work will achieve.

Will total refusal to engage with it in good faith contribute to solving a certain problem? Sometimes it can, particularly if it’s a work made in bad faith that would benefit from your attention. But many times what it actually does is contribute to a very Puritan view of fiction that only allows us to consume “moral” stories, for fear that any slight sign of immorality is infectious and corrupting beyond our control. Recall my point about fiction being unable to directly control our actions, only influence our ideas of “normal.”

Now, that’s not the only reason people can be overly reactionary. There’s a second part that often goes with it.

It feels good to hate something.

This is something that has always been very prevalent in Hoyoverse fandoms. It’s very socially acceptable to hate on games like these since there’s already a lot to rag on genuinely. But when the more actively destructive elements are done to death, this lingering desire for justice manifests in treating yellow-level issues, ones that are multifaceted and/or mostly informed by context, as orange or red level problems. Then the game is trashed for being irredeemable. It’s very convenient for the content cycle and social media algorithms.

I’m now seeing these tendencies replicated by fandoms and individuals on their own time. It isn’t in vogue to have nuanced takes on our media, especially not when it does have distasteful elements. This can be seen when the creator of a work is outed as being an objectively awful person in some way. It’s not just that this person is bad, it’s that their creations are bad, their creative choices somehow communicated their evil nature, and everyone was stupid for not seeing it or supporting the creator’s actions by not publicly declaring that the work was always bad.

There’s a point to be made in cutting financial support to the creator, but it clearly isn’t about that. It just isn’t possible to identify a bad person simply by how disturbing their work is, even less so by its quality. This way of thinking allows many abusive people to skate by on the grounds that “bad people can’t make good art,” as well as making the worrying assertion that “good people can’t make uncomfortable art.”

And if they do make uncomfortable art, the audience will demand to be spoon fed confirmation that no, the creator doesn’t actually support the actions of the antagonist.

Don’t Think, Just Feel: Ending Remarks

Anti-intellectualism has been on the rise for a while. In the USA at least.

It started with jokes about the curtains being blue. About how English teachers are just making things up and art doesn’t really mean anything.

And now we’re here, unable to figure out for ourselves whether or not an author means this thing or the other, and won’t they just confirm it on social media? If they don’t, simply assume the worst. Simply take the text at face value or make arbitrary connections with little textual evidence.

If you got this far, thank you for humoring me. This topic means a lot. You can probably tell that I’m an English major, and I’ve watched as online discourse has taken a nosedive directly into reactionary Puritanism over the course of my life.

I will never forget that day on the Amino (yes, Amino) of my favorite book series when the moderators (likely preteens or teens) banned any discussion of an important canon couple for one reason:

Via a fanon conversion method, it had been determined that the guy was technically an adult and the girl was technically a teenager when they met…

In dragon years.

Dragon years.

Notoriously one-to-one with human years.

There may have been an interview with the author where she went “oh whoops sorry I didn’t mean for it to come out that way,” but I don’t entirely remember. All I know was that they’d declared it immoral and any talk or art of it would be deleted.

And no one said anything about how ridiculous it was!

It’s a pretty stupid story, but that was really the moment in which I saw with full clarity that such a level of moral panic was not based in real problems. It was some amorphous obsession with virtue and control headed by people trapped in an echo chamber they couldn’t see. And now it’s worse.

A bad feeling does not determine morality. Personal distaste does not determine morality. Your own ignorance does not determine morality.

It’s been hard for me in the past few years. Sometimes I feel a little like I’m going crazy when I see people saying blatantly wrong things and refusing to think about what they’re saying. My own education, I will never ever take it for granted I swear on the very concept of God, seems like forbidden knowledge at this point, and it’s… Terrifying. Deeply terrifying. People are so happy for censorship, and I just….

I couldn’t just watch anymore. I couldn’t.

Thank you for reading. I’d love to discuss this with you all since I’m by no means the final authority on fandom things.

[copperbadge]

Told my therapist about NaClYoHo, and she likes the idea a lot. But she had a really important question that I couldn't answer: What happens at the end of November for people who want or need to continue?

Hey, I told mine too! She thought it was a smart way to systematize something that even people without ADHD struggle with. I did write a little about this in the manifesto but not in a systemic way, and perhaps I should add some kind of "What Happens After November?" onto the end, so thank you for asking this question!

No system works for every person, and often if a system does work, only part of it works. So when I went to write the manifesto, I wanted to make it as modular as possible. There's a reason that while NaClYoHo is a community, it's a very loose one, without a messageboard or discord or anything that would more intentionally bring people together. This is meant to be a framework on which you build your own home, not an apartment building.

So honestly, what happens at the end of November is up to you.

(I'm assuming for the rest of this post that you've been participating, but if you haven't, that's okay -- most of this should still apply, it's just less about "continuing momentum" and more about "committing to an idea".)

I talk a little in the manifesto about how doing this can help to systematize it -- having spent 30 days putting on a podcast and cleaning can teach you that it's easier than you think, and can put you in the habit. So if you feel it's good for you, keep doing what you're doing. Even posting about it, if you want. Maybe find a buddy you can talk to about it, or give it five minutes in therapy every week.

That said, doing this Every Day For A Month can also be tiring. I find it stressful! I manage the stress, but right now I look forward to giving myself permission not to see something dirty or broken and feel compelled to clean or fix it. Part of doing this in November, for me, is that the rest of the year I can say "Well, that's a November problem" and let it go. So you can, instead of keeping on, start keeping notes about what needs to be done, and either wait until next November, or designate a time period every few months to take care of it. Or have one day a week that's the Salty Pirate day, where you do dishes, or vacuum, or fold laundry or whatever.

NaClYoHo is going to taper gently for me -- it ends tomorrow, but some stuff is going to linger, like the craft projects I need to finish or the furniture I need to assemble that hasn't arrived yet. You can also do that -- keep cleaning as long as you have energy and, once you're feeling tired, stop for a bit.

Now, bearing in mind that I'm just a guy on the internet, it seems like your therapist is engaged with your process, so I would recommend bringing it back to her. She seems like the ideal person to help you make a plan for after November -- you can examine your options, maybe come up with some I haven't named, and discuss how each of them might impact you. And if you're checking in with her about it going forward, she can help you gauge how you're doing with it. At some point it might just be so habitual you don't need to worry about it as a process anymore -- or at some point you might need to set yourself a boundary.

It can be a little intimidating to put yourself so fully in control of something, but the only way you make this work for you is to make it your own. Whether that means continuing on with your whole chest, or shrinking it down for the rest of the year, or stopping -- you get to decide.

Good luck. :) And give your therapist a high five for me.

[moinsbienquekaworu]

you’re my dragon age mutual— should i play it?? idk if its good or not, is it enjoyable to play?? :O

I'm the Dragon Age mutual!! 🎉🎉 wooo

This is going to be a novel but TL;DR if you get them on sale (the three older ones go for like 6€ regularly on Steam) or even cheaper (wink wink etc.) they're a compelling experience. I'm chronically incapable of shutting up but if you've got the money and a computer or console that runs them (the most recent apart from Veilguard is from 2014, it should be fine?) and the posts I keep reblogging make it sound interesting, sure!

I don't know how clear that was from all the posts but they're computer role-playing games in a fantasy world that discusses oppression and religion and culture, sometimes in a hopeful way, sometimes in a tragic way. CRPGs are like - Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines, the Baldur's Gate games, the Fallout games, etc. Like a tabletop role-playing game, DnD, etc. but alone at a computer. If you would like to play pretend and make up a guy to go on adventures where you save the world (or fail to, depending), if you like games that have endearing companions, or you love lore and worldbuilding, I think they're fun, and you should give them a shot. If you're afraid about the combat, because I know I was, you can set the difficulty on easy and not worry about it too much. If you're looking for something cozy, maybe not Dragon Age, though :') it's a bit dark at times, people die, you have to figure out some rough situations, there's systematic oppression, religion that isn't always very nice, etc.

There are four games: Dragon Age Origins, spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate 1 & 2 if that means anything to you, where you save the world; Dragon Age 2, the tragedy in one specific city; Dragon Age Inquisition, where you save the world but from a different threat; and Dragon Age the Veilguard, which is a sequel to the plot of DAI where you save the world also but it's a different vibe. If you want better summaries, I can get into more detail, or wikipedia probably has you covered.

Playing them in order, so DAO -> DA2 -> DAI -> DAV, lets your character and decisions from the earlier games be imported in the later ones, which is neat because it feels like you're playing in your own custom world instead of factory default (they didn't keep that up with Veilguard). It also introduces you to the world the "intended way", ie you're less likely to get lost in the lore and who's who and what things mean.

That said, it's really not necessary to play them in order. If, say, DA2, looks super interesting, play that one and don't worry about it. All the games have in-game explanations of who's who and what things mean, and even Veilguard, which continues the plot of Inquisition, explains what's going on. There's a wiki if you like reading wikis also. Having your own little custom world where so and so is king because you put him on the throne two games ago is fun but it's not necessary at all. A lot of people started playing with Inquisition, and nowadays they're also some people who started with the recent one, Veilguard, like me, and it's fine. Origins, 2 and Inquisition keep a relatively similar vibe, in terms of which topics are tackled, how they're handled, the writing, even the aesthetic influences, and Veilguard is different because of its development, but that's nitpicking.

I'd say, if you want to play one, Inquisition isn't a bad starting point, because it's got the Dragon Age vibe but it's a more modern kind of video game, so there isn't the barrier of "what kind of an outdated system is that" (sorry DAO combat). That said, if any companions catch your eye, definitely play the game they're from, because the companions are really fun, and if you want a specific kind of story you can look at plot summaries for the games and decide on that.

Anyway! I think that helps? Maybe? I love talking so if you have more questions, ask away, and if you do end up playing one of them, definitely tell me!

[freezerbnuuy]

The below is a screenshot since it’s not entirely clear on the mobile custom blog theme of mine:

This is why I personally do not like or agree with this take. Discussed below!

I do genuinely think people really need to stop expecting fantasy and sci-fi worlds to always have perfect 1-to-1 allegories with their specific outlook of the real world when it comes to the social politics. All worlds will have differences in sociopolitics to our own. Just the same as racism, ableism, homo/transphobia etc. all have their differences, naturally fantasy and sci-fi races will have differences in the way they’re treated to any real-life groups because *surprised pikachu face* it’s fiction, and a fictional world will never match ours to a T, that’s… why it’s fiction. However, that said, going to contradict myself a bit - we are always going to relate non-reality with reality so we can try and understand fictional worlds - and applying the above framework to real-life leads to some pretty awful implications. So that is how this post will go.

It’s also worth mentioning that expectation of a work to adhere entirely to one’s beliefs or worldview is also something I see more accepted from the lips of a white person - if we call something out in fiction for being problematic or not Leftist enough we are more likely to have what we say be accepted… but when Black, Indigenous or Arab people speak out against racist allegory in fiction, they are treated as ‘taking it too seriously’. This does not apply to the above post and is more just a generality of what I’ve seen in similar discussions on here, but regardless of identity of OP I still do not personally agree with this post.

Many people on this website want their fantasy and sci fi worlds to be a perfect 1-on-1 with online Leftist ideals, in part due to a fear that interacting with anything else would make one a less moral person: So if we’re going by general Leftist Tumblr attitudes to real-world issues here, the attitude of ‘actually when a lot of them do bad things it’s okay to try and kill them just in case they too will do bad things’ sounds like one of the least Leftist things I can think of.

‘How many dangerous people in a demographic does it take for me to be justified in trying to murder them in case they too are dangerous’ just doesn’t sound like something that would go down too well in a genuinely Leftist circle, who are largely against systematically-acceptable murder and things like the death penalty and who are aware of things like the myth of a perfect victim. It also slightly reminds me of some people’s criticisms of Dungeons and Dragons and other TTRPG’s denoting whole races as good and evil, and the people who took issues with such things (and certain fantasy races commonly being acceptable targets of massacres because The Text Said They’re All Evil’ ) being people from groups who are largely tarred with the ‘dangerous and therefore acceptable targets’ brush because of things some of their community did past or present.

It’s also worth mentioning that in my story, the persecution of witches mainly stems from witches in the past who did bad things, and Lord Volpe became the figurehead of witchfinding after his family was killed in a house fire started by witches who hated his grandfather’s anti-witch stances he published in a very popular book. Witches throughout the story’s history have done bad, but does that call for them to be acceptably hung, drowned and burned?

Unless I have misunderstood the post entirely , I feel like ‘Unlike real-life minorities people actually have a reason to be scared of THESE fantasy races’ doesn’t work because real-life minorities are also tarred with the same brush of ‘because some of you did terrible things it is morally correct to kill you’. This is precisely what people are like with Arab folks, labelling them all as terroists. This is precisely what people are like when they act like Black people are inherently more violent or dangerous, because white perpetrators of violence are treated as tragic and troubled and just having a bad day whilst everyone else is labelled as it just being part of their inherent badness that they were born with because racism. This is precisely what people are like when they act like trans women are inherently predatory. This is precisely what people are like to people with schizophrenia, personality disorders and autism.