#you can discuss and make it less systematic

[anaalnathrakhs]

"i thought you said you'd make an effort" MOTHERFUCKER THIS IS ONLY COMPLAINT #1 OUT OF A VERY LONG LIST JUST BE GRATEFUL I CAN WAIT UNTIL THE GUESTS ARE GONE TO SNAP

[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.

[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.

[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.

[compassionatereminders]

tw psych wards, suicide

in my third world country, psych wards are so few and far between that the people in there generally are the worst off. i’ve both worked in one and been admitted to one, and on both ends i’ve found that they’re life saving and life affirming. which is to say, there are some bad experiences (eg, irritable but still ethical resident doctors) but the people who come in generally come out feeling better.

personally, my life turned around because of the psych ward. i was admitted because i was about to kill myself, and one and a half year later i’m generally happy and successful.

are you in a first world country? if yes, do you have any insights on why you had a worse experience than people in my county? is it something about the governance, the culture, or something else? (this is a genuine question, i want to know how to make life better for people like us!)

First of all I want to say that I am genuinely so happy that your stay in a psych ward helped you get better. Second of all I want to deeply thank you for curiously asking me "so why didn't you have that experience?" instead of just going "so psych wards are good!" I really appreciate this.

Yes, I live in a first world country. And actually, a bunch of research has implied that this actually might decrease, not increase, my statistical chance of mental health related recovery. That's not to say that any country's mental health care can be effectively summarized as inherently helpful or inherently harmful. Individual experiences vary everywhere! I am also not denying that in general it is a big privilege to live in a first world country, and that I have many options and privileges not afforded to most people living in third world countries, regardless of my mental health status.

That being said, when comparing statistic recovery rates for, let's say, my diagnosis of schizophrenia, in first world countries vs third world countries, schizophrenics in third world countries generally do better. And this doesn't have one clear cause, but has been theorized to have a lot of potential contributing factors.

Those are among others that in third world countries, there is generally a less individualistic and fatalistic approach to mental health issues, stronger community ties, less systematic and forced/coerced mental health treatment and less reliance on psych medication (in the case of schizophrenia especially antipsychotics). And the fact that living in a country with limited mental health care might actually increase the chances of a good outcome is definitely worth a pause and further discussion.

[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.

[olderthannetfic]

A lot of people in your inbox are doing the thing from that Tumblr post about how way too many people only think of feminism discussions in terms of the Most Oppressed Man and Least Oppressed Woman. Y'all really need to stop comparing marginalized men to white cis straight female CEOs, and instead compare them to women who are similarly marginalized.

I think the gender pay gap in many countries - an objective reality with tons of statistics to back it up - is a good way to illustrate this. Yeah, if you're a man in a low level at a company, the women ranked above you probably make more than you. But what about the women at the same level as you? That's what the pay gap is referencing: that women tend to make less than men (of the same race and other factors - there's also a racial pay gap, and black women make even less than white women but also less than black men) for doing the same work, at the same level, etc.

(And sometimes the disparity isn't even between people on the "same level": Claire Foy played Queen Elizabeth II on The Crown, a show ABOUT Queen Elizabeth II, and she made less than Matt Smith did playing Prince Philip until she found out and drew attention to it and the studio was forced to pay her what they owed her.)

The argument of comparing more privileged women and less privileged men, though, is one that anti-feminists like Men's Rights Activists use to deny the gender pay gap. They'll argue that because some individual women in higher-powered jobs make more than they do, that the pay gap doesn't exist, even though those women are likely making less than men in similarly high-powered jobs.

We need ways to talk about these systematic realities because we can't really address the problem if you don't know what causes the problem. But I also hope people realize that this particular thought distortion can be applied to pretty much any type of marginalization.

And, in fact, outside of Tumblr, it DOES get used that way. I've seen people do this with race: suggest that the existence of multimillionaire black athletes and actors alongside the existence of, say, homeless white people, means that white privilege/racism isn't real. Or use the existence of affluent gay people or gay politicians like Pete Buttigieg, or the fact that a lot of white cis gay people can buy into racism or transphobia, to suggest that homophobia doesn't exist. Just about every disabled person I know has a story about someone suggesting their disability "can't be all that bad" because of other advantages they had in life. Yeah, having an advanced degree and supportive family, friends and spouse means my ADHD doesn't affect me as badly as if I didn't have those things - but if I didn't have ADHD I'd still have fewer struggles. That's the comparison point.

When you're designing an experiment you can't alter every variable at once. You have to stick to just one variable at a time.

--

[arealphrooblem]

Terms of Surrender Part 5

Synopsis: The queen of a doomed city makes the deal her husband refused to make with the conquering warlord outside her city's gates.

Part One Here

Part Four Here

CW: Ingrained, systematic sexism (not from the Warlord)

“I have a matter I wish to discuss with you.”

The warlord hovered his hand over a rook and then a pawn, considering his next move. The last few visits to the rooftop garden had shown nothing but a city peacefully rebuilding; even so, the queen felt her stomach clench in unease.

“Oh?” she said, keeping her voice light and curious.

The warlord settled on the pawn and moved it. “Yes. The king of Neighboring Country wants to meet and discuss new trade agreements. I had hoped to gain your insight and advice on his upcoming visit.”

“You want my advice?”

The warlord glanced up at her from the board. “Of course. Out of everyone I know, you would have the most experience and knowledge with this man and previous trade agreements.”

“And you would trust my advice?” she asked slowly, game forgotten.

The corner of his mouth lifted up. “Well I wouldn’t follow it blindly, but I don’t follow any advice blindly. It doesn’t make it any less valuable. Would you be willing to share it?”

She chose her words carefully. “I will share what I can. However, my husband did not include me in those kinds of negotiations.”

“What do you mean he didn’t include you?” The tiny smile dropped, replaced by an icy glint in his eyes. “You are his wife and a ruler of your country. Why would you not be included?”

The question took her aback, the answer so obvious to her that she didn’t understand his confusion. “I’m a woman,” she explained slowly. “Trade and the economy were not part of my duties. That’s the sphere of men.”

He stared at her as if she had just spoken gibberish, or in a language foreign to both of them. “I see,” he said after a long moment.

She felt as if she had just disappointed him and the guilt and embarrassment of it burned at her edges.

“I have met that king many times,” she said tentatively. “He was a friend of my father’s before I was married. I could advise you on his personality, his flaws and vices.”

“That would be very helpful,” he said, the coldness of his gaze melting. “Thank you.” He gestured at the chessboard. “It’s your turn, my lady.”

That afternoon, one of her guards delivered a rolled up piece of parchment to her, from the warlord.

“What is this?” she asked cautiously.

“The terms of trade my lord created,” said the guard. “He wanted you to look over them.”

Nerves fluttered in her gut but she did not let her face betray her. “I see. Thank you.”

She took it to her desk that faced a window to the garden, opened up the curtains,  and settled in. Reading it with her limited skills felt like deciphering a code. The slant of his beautiful handwriting often confused her, as did his long, winding sentences. She took in enough to get a basic idea of the terms he wanted; hopefully combined with her knowledge of the king in question she would be able to provide enough assistance to satisfy him and not enough to invite more this sort of advice.

Dinner was accompanied by the Warlord himself, who set them up at her breakfast table. She noticed that he preferred simple food, not multiple courses, and he had a sweet tooth. Tonight's dinner was seasoned, tender fish, spiced rice and soft flat bread. A small layered pastry sat on a separate plate.

“This is unexpected,” she said. “I haven’t had a dinner companion in quite some time.”

He paused, fork in hand. “Do you prefer to eat alone? I can return.”

“No, no. It was not a complaint.”

In truth she did enjoy his company, despite her reluctance to trust him. And though she’d grown more comfortable with a level of solitude unheard of for a member of the court, she often found herself lonely.

He gave her that tiny smile. “I thought we could discuss that trade contract after we eat. Meanwhile, what can you tell me about your experiences with this king?”

“He’s very manipulative,” she said immediately. “My father could see through much of his lies, but he ran circles around my husband and received many benefits as a result. I’m sure he expects to woo your ego enough to get those same benefits from you.”

The Warlord smirked. “I hope he gets used to disappointment.”

They discussed the king in more detail. The Queen regaled him with stories of the type of oily flattery that had won her husband’s fragile ego so quickly. She could tell just by the way the Warlord rolled his eyes or pursed his lips that such flattery would not work on him, that his ego was not fragile at all. It pleased her that the king would be greatly disappointed indeed but not brave or stupid enough to start a war over it. If only she could sit in on such a meeting to witness it herself.

She enjoyed their conversation so much that she forgot his expectation for after dinner. Once the plates were cleared away, the Warlord asked her to bring the scroll, and the bottom of her stomach dropped out. She obeyed regardless, trapped. The Warlord unrolled it out on the table between them.

“Considering the information you gave me, I see several loopholes this king will try to exploit. Which do you think is the worst offender?”

He gestured at the scroll, inviting her to look. The queen leaned over the table, a small knot forming in her stomach. To tell the truth that she could barely read and understand the first paragraph, let alone be able to skim the entire document.

She took a gamble, pointed vaguely at a paragraph in the middle. The Warlord peered down, brow furrowed.

“Forgive me, I must have gotten confused at what section you pointed at. This is a detail of my previous trade agreements in my country. What part did you refer to again?”

A hot flush crawled down her neck. “My apologies,” she said. “I meant this section right here.”

She pointed to a part two paragraphs below. The Warlord glanced down for a moment before looking back up, gaze suddenly cold.

“If you did not want to give your advice, you could have just told me. I gave you no obligation to comply. Did you even read this?”

The knot in her stomach twisted painfully. “Of course I read it,” she lied.

“And yet you point out the most useless parts of the contract that do not answer my concerns,” he retorted. “I will not be taken for a fool, not especially for asking for something that would only help your people.”

“I’m not trying to make you a fool!” she snapped. How did this conversation spiral so fast?

“Then answer my question!”

“I can’t!” she shouted.

Her voice echoed against the stone walls. The Warlord looked nonplussed.

“Why not?” he asked. “You’re not a stupid woman. Even if you could not be present for these types of discussions with your husband — which I find an utterly ridiculous practice — you would still have valuable insight. Unless, of course, watching me fail at this gives you some petty sense of revenge.”

Right now the Queen wanted nothing more than to throw herself out the window before she let him know the truth.

“I don’t care for petty revenge,” she said through gritted teeth.

“No, you don’t seem the type,” he agreed. “So why is this so difficult?”

That horrible, terrifying focus of his stare narrowed onto her and she watched the realization dawn on him in horrible, terrifying clarity.

“Please tell me you can read,” he said.

She jut her chin out. “I can read.” It technically was not a lie.

He tapped at one of the last paragraphs of the contract, the one closest to her end of the table. “Read that for me.”

She crossed her arm. “I’m not playing your game.”

His stare challenged her. “It’s not a game. Read it.”

She said nothing, holding his stare, keeping her arms crossed. The longer she refused the stormier his gaze became. But the fear of his anger was like a candle to the inferno of her shame. Finally he took up the scroll in disgust and rolled it back up. Victory tasted like ash on her tongue.

“Why were you never taught to read?” he demanded. “Was it because of your father? Did your mother know how to read? What sick bastard of a man keeps his daughters from literacy?”

“It wasn’t my father,” she snapped, unable to hear further slander of her family. “No woman knows how to read!”

“What?”

If anything, this made him even more furious. His face glowed red with it.

“You’re telling me half of your citizens can’t read? Half of your workforce can’t read?  Half of your royal court can’t read? The mothers of your children can’t read? Why?”

“Because we don’t need to read!” she shouted.

It was a mantra she had heard over and over again. Mothers did not need to read to cook or clean or raise children or love their husbands. Women of the court did not need to read to paint or embroider or manipulate the court for their husband’s favor. Women did not make decisions — their husbands and fathers did. What was the point of reading?

“Are you fucking serious?”

She stood up so suddenly the char behind her fell over. The lack of literacy was hard enough to swallow without the implication that it was somehow her fault, that she was culpable in it’s continuation. As if she could ever have the power to change an idea ingrained over hundreds of generations, Queen or not.

“I don’t care that I’m your prisoner,” she said shakily. Tears crowded in her throat and she refused to let him witness them. “I am not listening to this anymore. I am sorry my inadequacies have disappointed you.”

She strode over to her bedroom doors and slammed them shut behind her.

For three days she did not see or hear anything from the Warlord, which suited her just fine. A constant ember of shame glowed in her chest. He had thought so highly of her, in spite of their circumstances. It baffled her and warmed her. The Queen’s husband had seen her as a means to an end, a way to the throne, and her father had seen her as a failure for not being a son. No man had ever seen her as worthy of equal respect until the Warlord.

And now he thought she was nothing more than pathetic and  at fault for her own stupidity. She mourned the loss of his regard for her as much as she burned in fury at him for the whole cursed affair.

On the fourth day, the Warlord entered her sitting room. He held a book in his hand. The Queen glanced up at him from her embroidery and then pointedly ignored him. This did not stop him from taking a seat across from her.

Silence stretched out between them as fragile as a spider’s web. She refused to break it first just as she refused to look at him.

“I owe you an apology,” he said finally.

Her needle paused in surprise, but she kept her gaze firmly on her project.

“I humiliated you. It was not done intentionally; I truly had no idea the women here were illiterate. I became so angry because I see that practice as utterly barbaric and cruel. But I fear in my anger I only deepened your shame.”

The ice of her anger melted enough for her to respond.

“I have tried to teach myself,” she explained haltingly. “But my skills are very rudimentary at best. If I could have changed it, I would have.”

She dared a glance at his face and found herself shocked at the sorrow reflected in it.

“Back home, the women are not so powerless and at the mercy of their men,” he said. “It’s not a perfectly equal society by any means. But it is much different than here. You walked into my camp and delivered your surrender with such confidence, I had assumed you possessed much more power than you did.”

“I have more respect from you as a prisoner than I did from my husband as a Queen,” she admitted.

He looked pained. “That is unacceptable.”

She shrugged. “He was my father’s closest friend. I was his avenue to rule, and the bearer of his heir and nothing more.”

“You will never have to concern yourself with him again,” he said, a glint of his previous fury in his eyes.

The corner of her mouth tipped up. “No,” she agreed. “I will not.”

A relief she thanks God for every day.

“If you want it, I could arrange for a tutor for you,” he offered. “To teach you to read. I am already making plans to open up schools for the women here.”

And you wonder why I find you hard to believe she thought again.

“And until then, I thought I could read to you sometimes?” This offer came more hesitantly, as if afraid it would offend her.

She put her embroidery to the side. “I would like that very much.”

part 6 here

Taglist: @cesspitoflove@aprilraine@talesofurbania1@sarcasticlittlebook @hasel-anne @weaverofbrokenthreads @prismaticpizza

[spaghettificationandpretzels]

Writing Resources: Chronic Pain and Illness

Sp's resources for Content Creators Materialist

Trigger warnings for discussion of chronic pain and illness. Other authors are more than welcome to add their own points and I will update the link in the masterlist as more is added. Alternatively, send me an anon ask or DM if you want to remain anonymous. I have more than one chronic issue myself, I will use the block unbutton if you're an ass about this.

Chronic pain and illness have little to no representation in fanfiction. If you wish to add these to your story and you don't experience the subject yourself, please do research using medically accurate sources.

Patient Care and Health Information - The Mayo Clinic. Look up the condition in the search bar.

The NHS website Look up the condition in the search bar.

Another good resource is forums and subreddits.

2. Even people with the same condition have different experiences, be careful not to make blanket statements.

3. Women, POC and members of the lgbtqia+ community are less likely to get treatment, more likely to be treated like drug seekers and are more likely to be misdiagnosed or have to wait much longer for an accurate diagnosis. Similarly, their issues are more likely to be blamed on mental health issues and hypochondria.

4. Someone living with a chronic condition may not have a 'normal', or what they consider normal may be disordered. Some people with chronic conditions may not know what not being in pain or being well-rested is like. When I was younger and before my current treatment, I was never hungry or out of pain, this shocked people when I told them, it was as normal as breathing to me.

5. Doctors can suck, some people are outright terrified to get treatment due to past experiences. I was treated like a drug seeker once and now get the shakes before seeing a new doctor for fear of being called an addict.

6. The things people experiences do not care what you have going on. They can steal happy moments in a flash and render someone unable to leave their home, it's common for someone with a chronic condition to need to plan everything down to the second (or feel like they need to), cancel at the last minute or worry that they won't be able to enjoy something they have looked forward to.

7. We are not looking to be babied, I know my own limits and will express them. There is a line between a character being caring and infantilising. Having said that, there are times when I haven't expressed my needs for fear they will be ignored. If you are writing a caretaker scene or character be careful to ensure the other person still maintains their autonomy.

8. Empathy, not sympathy. Sympathy is looking down at someone in a hole and telling them they can climb out, empathy is getting in there are helping them out. Sometimes the best thing someone can hear is "I have no idea what you're going through."

9. Chronic conditions are systematic, it's not just pain, it's also brain fog, being unable to sleep or stay awake, having problems controlling emotions, and changes in appetite and sex drive.

10. There is never a magic cure, chronic conditions are a part of someone. Making them disappear doesn't mean a happy ending because, in real life, they don't disappear. It doesn't make someone less than others if they don't get better.

Part Two: Chronic migraines

[communist-ojou-sama]

What's like the point of insisting that black people in the USA (&probably Europe but that's not what the discourse is about) don't benefit from imperialism other than feeling good? Like when they annoy bloggers for generalizing people of the USA the topic of discussion is most of the time either actions of the state itself or dominant culture. Demanding people to specify "white" is somewhat obnoxious to non-Americans, but it doesn't change the points in the slightest (sometimes it's even fair when it comes to say settler mentality, probably also when it comes to religion).

Black people constitute 13(?)% of USA population and are in fact mostly poor, so even if we completely ignore their participation in imperialism it doesn't change things, so it's not even meaningful sabotage.

I am not American so I probably don't know how it affects movements inside, but it really feels pointless.

(In fact the only people whom I saw be really offended by it are black people not from USA, so like. Also by obnoxious I meant that I saw them accuse of racism for not specifying "white Americans" people who are not white in the first place, because it feels like "you have to know the internal complexities of my country while I can not know anything about your")

I understand the well-meaning nature of this ask, so I'm going to try my best to reply in kind in the spirit of good faith. First and foremost the thing that people need to get updated on is that most black USians are not poor. Less than 20% of black people in the US live below the federal poverty line, a little over 17%. That is in fact about twice the poverty rate of White USians, and the federal poverty line certainly does not represent the increasing hardships brought upon Especially black people by the de-industrialization and precaritization of the US economy, but even adjusting for that, the fact of the matter is, most of us Are Not Poor. Poverty is widespread enough in our communities that there's almost no one among us that doesn't know someone in our family or social circle that does live in crushing poverty, but that is not the reality of Most of our day-to-day lives. And that's the thing that makes me mad, instead its the laundering of the suffering of people we See in our lives that is being used to win internet arguments and be petty bullies. Perhaps excluding the very richest Black USians, blackness is absolutely something that leaves us potentially marked for execution at any time and within the US we face constant institutional abuse and deprivation, most notably in medical settings; there's no denying we're at the rock bottom of the US's vicious and brutal racial caste system.

However, where is this reality any different for black people? If you compare the PPP-adjusted GDP per capita of Black USians to, for example, Black Ayitians, Black Jamaicans, Black Brazilians, Afro-Latinos, and indeed Black Africans, the reality is that while we're still black, we're by far the richest black community in the world, and how did we get so much richer than other Black communities? It's through our bitchass "community leaders" who have done nothing for decades but push class collaborationism and "black capitalism" in the community, collaborationism with global white-supremacist fascism, in the wake of the systematic destruction of the radical Black liberation movements of the 1960s and 1970s.

[genderkoolaid]

sorry that im a bit ignorant but im trying to learn, I've never come across the term MRA before, can i ask what it means, please and thank you? - trans kid who is trying to learn about this stuff

"MRA" means "Men's Rights Activst." It refers to a movement of cis(het) men, largely white, which claims to seek more rights for men on the basis that men are oppressed by women/that women are privileged in some or all areas of society, to the detriment of men. It almost always focuses entirely on cis, straight, white men.

In practice, MRAs reject the concept of the patriarchy and downplay or entirely reject misogyny as a form of oppression. It grew out of men's liberation, which was originally feminist-aligned but then split between men whose politics aligned with feminism & men who saw feminism as a source of their issues (MRAs). MRA rhetoric involves taking men's issues and using them as a cudgel against feminism, rejecting any analysis of these issues that places the blame on the patriarchy (often relying on an understanding of the patriarchy as "men in general," born out of a poor understanding of feminist theory). MRAs tend to use these issues as a "gotcha!" against any feminist discussion of misogyny or male privilege, rather than actually seeking the cause of these issues (patriarchy) & working with women to make the systematic changes needed to alleviate them.

For example, one of the hottest topics MRAs use is parental rights, specifically child custody and child support. MRAs will claim that courts are unfairly biased against fathers because they love women and hate men (to be very reductive about the arguments they make). This is very comforting to men who have been fucked over by the court system & who have unexamined internalized misogyny. However, this bias can be better explained by feminist men's liberation; the Youtuber F.D Signifier (in a video linked in the post linked below) made a great counter to this, explaining how mothers are prioritized because the patriarchy says that women's natural role is motherhood, and attempts to discourage them from working by placing the burden of parenting on them; fathers, on the other hand, are perceived as naturally being less involved.

MRAs make discussing men's issues really difficult because people end up associating any discussion of men's issues with them. Additionally, a lot of people counter MRA arguments by just disagreeing with anything they say, rather than acknowledging that the issue is an issue but pointing out why their conclusions are flawed and unhelpful.

I semi-recently had to deal with MRAs myself on a post about sexual assault & cis men, which you can check out here if you want to see this kind of rhetoric in action.

[luaspersona]

hey y’all, how have you been?

i know it’s been a while, and i know i promised a fic that was supposed to be posted earlier this month and that it’s been some time since i dropped a review. but a lot of stuff happened and i realized that i needed some time off. during that time, i reflected a lot and considered not returning, maybe only posting the seoul town road story and going offline for good. eventually tho, i understood how much i missed reading and how much i couldn’t really stop coming up with ideas and outlining some stories — i like this and for the most part, it makes me really happy.

but i wanted to talk a bit about the stuff that made me second-thought coming back. i wanted to be open about stuff that’s depressing and demotivating in this community, especially because i’ll change a lot of things about how i interact here.

this will be a long text, but it’s really important if you follow me. i wanna make it clear tho, before anything, that i’m speaking for myself here, and myself only.

⇢ the first thing i wanna say is that i’ll be generally less active. i used to think that in order to become a popular blog or whatever i had to be chronically online, posting all the time and all. after giving it some thought, i can't really tell if that's true or not, but the thing is: i don’t have the mental health for it. so i won't push myself. but also, if you write something and want me to read it, please send it to me! shamelessly and guiltlessly promote your work! i probably won’t see it on the feed, but i’m always open for recommendations, i just don't have the time to look for it anymore.

⇢ i’ll also go through my followers and block anyone who doesn’t have their age displayed or looks like a bot. no questions asked. this isn’t a blog for minors, and i wanna protect myself. understand how tumblr works if y’all wanna be here.

⇢ i will finish and post seoul town road soon. please be patient. 

⇢ lately, i’ve seen a lot of wonderful writers deactivate due to lack of interaction and support. i understand we’re here working, writing and sharing for free because we *chose to*, but it's hard to speak to the void. so please, don’t let this become a place where authors are talking to themselves while feeling unsafe due to plagiarism or hate. i understand the reasons why someone might be a silent reader, but... just don't make the authors you like feel alone, y'all (i can write some tips and general guides for reviewing and interacting with writing blogs if y’all are interested).

⇢ ok, so… i thought a lot about whether or not to talk about it. it was already super messy, even if i wasn’t online at the time and didn’t see it happening (i'm sorry if this is just repetition, and i bet y'all are sick of it). but ultimately, the main reason why i hesitated to come back was because of what happened to M, so i kinda need to vent about that.

M was one of the oldest blogs here, always open to chat and interact and doing god's work for our horny and sentimental souls (shape of your body is actually one of my favorite stories ever and made me realize a bunch of stuff about myself to the point where i quoted some of it to my therapist at the time), and y’all came for them in such a nasty, violent way, misgendering and attacking a person that, upon first being called out for writing something insensitive, was immediately open to discussion and hearing what y’all had to say (regardless if it really was insensitive or not, the discussion was more than welcomed by them).

what shocks me the most, is that y’all are supposedly from a fandom of a bunch of dudes who once wrote problematic stuff, but educated themselves after accepting criticism and changed. if y’all understand that our oppressions are systematic, y’all have to understand that everyone has stuff to learn and stuff to let go. i say that as a black woman, who once used to perpetrate racist shit because that was how i was raised and taught. i say that as a bi woman, who once used to perpetrate biphobic and queerphobic rhetoric because that was how i was raised and taught. i say that as a human being, who once used (and probably still do to some capacity) to perpetrate prejudice and problematic behavior because that was how i was raised and taught.

this is not to say we should forgive and forget whenever someone says stuff that’s wrong or suspicious, but sometimes people really don’t understand that what they’ve said is offensive or from a place of unfamiliarity (not sure if that's a real word), and if we gave the boys the benefit of the doubt and still supported them (and are now being rewarded with their care and attention) why can’t we do the same for ourselves? not to mention how transphobic most of y’all were, all while calling someone out for doing something you deemed problematic, like ??? fuck y’all tbh. seeing how they were treated, and learning about the tea blog made me physically sick. someone who has always been such a light in this community being dragged from one (debatable) mistake — which they acknowledged and apologized for — made me depressed af.

it all made this look like stan twitter, where every interaction feels like an attempt to expose someone and draw hate towards them. this makes me feel unsafe as hell. and i don’t know… this whole environment is not as it used to be. there were a bunch of nice projects i wanted to share, i was working on jade’s profile for a nice little thing i wanted to do to support the writing community, i was working on monthly recs, but… idk. i’m not saying i won’t do them, just saying it might take longer for me to feel comfortable here again.

⇢ i know i'm no one. i'm a little blog from the corner of our community, and i barely have enough followers for all of this to mean anything. but this is still my blog, and it's still a place that was supposed to feel good. and i want to have some control over it, even if no one cares necessarily.

anyway. i’m depressed, and i’m saying stuff i might regret, but. yeah. that’s it ig. i'll return slowly and i missed y'all, especially on discord, and i'm sorry for vanishing. i'll also be rb this for the next days to make sure that i reaches everyone i want it to reach.

[salty-socialist]

A Leftist's Opinion on Community Response to Hurricane Helene, Chappell Roan, and the 2024 Election

Context and request: I'm a white, queer leftist. I understand that I am coming from a place of privilege. This is written after I have looked into responses from BIPOC and communitiesI'm less involved with.

If you have a problem with something I said or something to contribute, feel free to open a (CIVIL) discussion with me.

I grew up in Alaska for the first 16 years of my life. I was lucky enough to be in almost a political bubble. Most of my family are democrats, and the ones who weren't still cared for me even though I was visibly queer. I have godparents who saved me from abuse, but also voted for Trump twice. My home is a red state filled with Libertarians. But it's also the home of my queer friends, of my indigenous friends, of some of the most leftist people I've had the honor to work with.

I moved to Seattle at 16. Again, I was privileged enough to live in an upper class neighborhood and my school was mostly white. I was living in Seattle during the height of the George Floyd protests and encampments.

I was liberal in Alaska, and it was that upbringing which paved the way for me to become fully leftist in Seattle. Because Alaska may be in support of Trump overwhelmingly, but Seattle showed me the pageantry of white liberals in blue states.

In Alaska I was on the marksmanship Rifle Team for my high school. The whole team went to the gun control protest in Sophomore year. We all staunchly believed in gun control (and for my part, I still do).

In 2020 I was living in Seattle and watched as registered democrats I knew said that BLM didn't make sense because All Lives Matter. I saw the white fear from liberals as protests became more aggravated.

All of this to say, watching some white democrats respond to Hurricane Helene and the devastation of south/midwest towns and lives has been absolutely horrific. To say that you care less about the devastation of peoples' lives because they live in a red state? How does it feel to take on the same stance of human life that Ronald Reagan perpetuated during the AIDs crisis? There is nothing to justify that level of destruction of human lives. It also shows a lack of understanding for the systematic oppression people in these areas face. They're gerrymandered and suppressed to hell, all while democrats often fully write off southern states so most active campaigning they're getting is republican.

For Chappell Roan I'll be more brief. Yes, her phrasing lacked the nuance it should have been delivered with. She needs PR help and you can tell that she became famous slightly too fast. But it is absolutely valid to refuse to endorse Kamala Harris and Tim Walz. I will be voting for Harris and Walz in the coming election, but I would never endorse them. We are witnessing a genocide as our government sanctions and funds the militaristic bombing of thousands of innocent lives. Chappell Roan has not been silent on her support of Palestine and for her to actively endorse Kamala would go against the beliefs she has perpetuated to the world.

I will be voting for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz in the coming election. We're not in a position at present to vote in a third party candidate. While there's policies and actions of the Biden, now Harris platform, that I will continue to speak out and fight against, I do believe that there is a clear difference in danger to US communities between the policies of the democrat and republican parties. Additionally, I will be voting with the knowledge that if Trump is elected he will likely be able to stack SCOTUS even more republican than he already has. His appointments to SCOTUS during his tenure as president are a huge reason why Roe V Wade was struck down.

Please remember to check your voting registration as well as deadlines, or please register here.

If you have $5 or more to spare, please consider donating to one of the GFM in this linktree to help a Palestinian family escape Genocide. There are also some who have escaped but are now without the resources to start their life. If you don't have the money please consider boosting the families. Each family listed is one I have personally donated to. Please also check out Operation Olive Branch and the good work they are doing.

[thegrimreaperisanerd]

hii i have a maybe somewhat difficult question:

how do you go about writing all of the police/detective stuff? I have no knowledge at all about that except having played the game a few times and watching bbc sherlock back when that was a thing.

I have so many cool kimharry things in my mind that i need to get on paper but i don't know how to involve all the cop stuff in a natural way because i don't know anything about it and don't want it to be too wildly incorrect.

so yeah.. how do you even learn the things for this?

thank you so much i love your work

Quite a difficult question I won't lie...... But I've answered at length so it's going under a readmore

This isn't my favourite thing to discuss online as it can trigger my psychosis, but I have an actual dismaying amount of experience with cops. I don't want to talk about it but... Bit like Cuno I suppose. Good ending for that kid is doing public services training ages 14 - 16, and going "oh this is shit actually" once he's got an out from his abusive parent, then working at a restaurant

I quite literally cannot go into detail - so don't ask because I WILL delete this post - but an ex military police officer told us a "funny story" about a "prank" he played on some kids in an occupied location during the late 80s that I recognised as psychological torture, but made my peers laugh. So I decided to become a faggot and poet instead.

~NOW FOR THE FUN ADVICE THAT IS ACTUALLY OF USE TO YOU!

Research:

Honestly, the amount of time I spend looking up stuff for writing is probably more than the time I spend writing. The internet's being fucked by SEO but it's a start. Like... There's plenty of info out there written on the police and their role in systematic oppression, I'm pretty sure there's free PDFs floating around on Tumblr actually...

If it's more "day in the life" I honestly don't know. Maybe reddit or if there's one of those "Ex-[blank} reviews [blank] in movies" videos on Youtube for cops, but obviously take everything said with a pinch of salt.

FAYDE:

Fayde is the best tool at your disposal. We bully Kim a lot for his dedication to the RCM but that makes finding out info pretty easy. EDC too! I've never played with high EDC so just typing in key words (especially names of other officers to try and get character info) and scrolling through is helpful.

Good keywords are "precinct", "RCM", "Militicia" as they'll bring up opinions/ info from other characters.

The RCM is not a traditional police force:

I would worry less about accuracy and more about being interesting. It doesn't need to be a perfect representation of police work since the canon makes a point of there being a distinction in the powers and roles of the RCM. Go listen to the collapsing tenement cut content. You don't need to write about them filling in forms if it's not relevant. It'll show in your writing if you're unsure/ bored.

Make them worse:

If you're going to write one of the officers doing something shitty (yes, that includes Kim and Harry) but worry that you've gone too far then I promise you haven't. Dickheads are drawn to positions of power and the impunity it gives them. There's a reason I wrote one of the 57's officers as a groomer.

Make them less competent:

Don't trust the police, but also don't expect anything of them.

As recently as Monday I had to call for the fire brigade because a lit (thankfully poorly made) petrol bomb had been left under a neighbour's car (I live an irritatingly interesting life for somebody who lives in the middle of fucking nowhere) nobody was harmed. Cop came to find me afterwards to get an interview from me since I'd spotted it and he told me, I kid you not, "Yeah, we're not gonna do anything unless anything else happens." Like, I expected as much but I wasn't expecting him to up and fucking say that. You're welcome for 85% of my council tax, you fucking moron.

Harry's a special case because he's, like, psychic and got "maybe if I solve *THIS* one my wife will let me sleep in the big bed" disorder, and nobody wants to read a case fic that they... don't solve (or do they..? *winks*) But if you care about realism you need dick-in-hand dipshits. Another favourite quote of mine from an officer two years back; "Is 'right wing' the good one or the bad one?" So the advice here is you're writing a cop well if you're reading it and thinking: holy shit please just go work at a TESCOs instead.

Don't worry so much:

You should write, first and foremost, for yourself. I like detective fiction, I have wasted an unfortunate amount of my life dealing with police due to my job and shit childhood. (I did originally write far more about this, but frankly it's better for myself if I don't bother. That's why it's taken me five days to answer this)

I've read/ watched a lot of detective fiction and I'm always more drawn to stuff that is less based in police work. Private investigators, investigative journalists, kid detectives like Nancy Drew, ect.

In particular my favourite book, perhaps of all time, is called Hideaway by Dean Koontz and is two fathers (one: the killer's father - a talented doctor who brought his shithead son back to life - and another, the doctor's most recent patient to be brought back from the brink who has developed a psychic link with the killer as a result) trying to stop him, but never actually meeting! It's one hell of a read if you need inspo.

Val McDermott is a good author for crime writing with less police input, too. She has a book called Killing The Shadows which is excellent. The Killer's motive is taking out crime writers who've romanticised psychological profilers after he was wrongly convicted. Fair enough! Until he starts... Killing about it? Sort of defeats the message... Anyway, what's fun about this book is that before each crime writer is killed (in the same way they wrote THEIR killers killing!! Love that) you get to read the first chapter of each writer's most famous work. So you are essentially getting six crime books in one (first chapter of at least) ...Also the main character's husband is a crime writer called Kit, which I've only remembered just double checking the book name now. Lol???

...This is just turning into me recommending books.

TLDR: write what you know, write what is fun, ACAB, don't even worry about it