• 1 Post
  • 112 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: September 13th, 2023

help-circle


  • What time periods/places are you interested in? I am able to and would be happy to give you a detailed list of primary and secondary sources for a good chunk of concepts.

    That’s the big thing - historians tend to focus. Even the university “western history from 1500” or whatever are going to vary a lot by what the professor is interested in and focused on. Behind just focusing on like a whole country or time period, they get super specific and do shit like figure out that whole undocumented kingdoms existed based on numismatic work (coins) or look at things like architectural influences that the crusaders brought back and can be seen in their classes (I had a prof who had a whole feminist interpretation of medieval castle architecture)

    Your comment alludes to the history of religion, which is definitely a complicated topic and has its own complexities in historiography (the study of history and techniques). Religion has interactions with so many other spheres, and so you also often have to dive deeply into the culture and history of the specific people who practiced it to understand the why - which is hard, because religious interpretations that are common now tend to get read backwards into the text.

    I’d be happy to give you a list of sources for any religion as well. (Do you feel most comfortable with texts for popular audiences, or would you like to explore academic material?)





  • Post-modernism laid the groundwork for an ‘I have my facts and you have yours’ culture.

    I feel like this is a common regressive take. The Right/anti intellectualist movement understood postmodernism as giving them the right to claim that facts don’t matter.

    Post modernism itself is a way of interrogating frameworks we take for granted. It’s not saying “facts don’t matter,” it’s saying “how do we know those are facts”? There are valid questions to ask about science as a way of knowing - which epistemological frameworks we take at face value, and if we really can. Lolita is a postmodernist work, because it’s asking you to interrogate what a novel means (in the context of an unreliable narrator - HH is lying to you, but he isn’t real. what does that mean about what is being described in a novel? Is a novel a window into a different universe which has a reality to be described?)

    The Right’s unreality is more of a Romantic one - none of those fuckers are reading Derrida or Deleuze. It’s more related to sexual insecurities and the death drive. I’m not a Freudian but I look at anti intellectuals and see deep sexual confusion and fear. If “male” and “female” are permeable categories, how does someone who defines their existence solely by their white masculinity going to police the boundaries of their own identity?





  • Desired profile and fit are different.

    I “passed” before HRT often just by wearing men’s clothes. The way that pants shape your butt is very different. I occasionally thrift women’s blouses and think I pull them off well, but these are ones from the 80’s and 90’s with the more “triangular” frame.

    Women’s sizing is an incoherent mess. Men’s sizing at least in theory should be based on measurements. Historically, you would have been expected to have your clothes adjusted by a tailor anyway - this world of fast fashion, “ready to wear” means most of us are walking around with clothes that fit us poorly. Mass produced clothes are trying to fit some sort of “average” person, and none of us have a perfectly average body.

    As far as shoes - there’s differences in shape and men’s feet on the whole tend to be larger. I think toebox proportions are different.

    (The real danger of a “mixed gender” shopping section would be people realizing how shit women’s clothing is. Cheap flimsy material, lacking pockets, constructed to fall apart with a stiff breeze - designed to be disposed of. Shoes being designed with no thought for comfort or long term health…)



  • Probably, yes. It’s fine to like video games and shit posting online, but as someone’s only hobbies - well, for one it doesn’t make you stand out. Pretty much all men play video games as a major hobby.

    It’s not that playing video games is bad but if that’s the first and only hobby you can name, it gives the impression that you’re the kind of person who spends all day trash talking on Rainbow Six or something.

    A creative/productive hobby will make you infinitely sexier. I bet if you knit or crochet in public, you can even get a woman to approach you. Cooking is also another great one, and gives you a great excuse to invite someone over.

    Like, trying to grow yourself will be beneficial whether you find a partner or not. Be the kind of person you would find interesting and want to be around.





    1. are you employed?

    2. do you have your own place?

    3. are you able to meet standard hygiene practices (regular showers, brushing teeth, cleaning your clothing and your sheets regularly)?

    4. are you able to carry on a normal conversation with a man? a woman? (the way you talk about women in this post makes me wonder if you talk to them in a way that makes it obvious that you just want to fuck them - this will immediately torpedo any chance you have with the vast vast majority of women)

    5. do you have interests and hobbies outside of the internet and video games?

    6. are you socially and emotionally developed enough to not share extreme or odd opinions in inappropriate contexts?

    If the answer to any of those is “no” - that’s what you want to work on.



  • If abusers were mean 24/7, they wouldn’t have access to victims.

    Domestic violence research shows a “honeymoon” cycle. Abuse escalates to a breaking point, then the abusers relents, becomes especially kind and showy (especially in public.)

    It’s the “trauma bond” (not the false pop-psych understanding “we experienced something traumatic together and that brought us closer”) but that abusers manipulate that intensity of emotion to create a sort of “addiction.”

    You get used to the highs and the lows. Being hit and then the next day at a nice restaurant. The sexual abuse and the trips to Disneyland. It’s supposed to fuck with your head. It’s supposed to make it harder to leave.


  • You shouldn’t just want a relationship to have a relationship. Women are human beings like you are - they have the same kinds of thoughts and feelings and ambitions that you do.

    Long term relationships are about finding someone that you enjoy spending time with. It’s a project and partnership. You want someone whose goals are aligned with yours.

    Just “wanting a relationship” to want one is an unhealthy place to start. You get so fixated on the idea of being completed by checking the box, that you’ll overlook all of those red flags and aspects you can’t deal with.

    A much better alternative, that will lead to what you ultimately want and what will benefit you, is leading a fulfilling life that will draw potential partners to you. Go join a hiking group, take art classes, see if your library has a book club. Things that benefit you regardless of whether you get the girl or not.

    Consider what you offer to potential partners - what benefit is there to being in a relationship with you? What do you envision doing with a partner (other than sex?)

    And very strongly consider what you want from a “family” before starting one. Don’t just have children because that’s the societal expectation - have children because you want them and will love them and care for them.