tumblr glitched and spared you all the most heated rant of my entire hoa fandom tenure

love when men cry about body hair bc "it's hygiene" and yet 15% of cis men leave the bathroom without washing their hands at all and an additional 35% only just wet their hands without using soap. that is nearly half of all men. that means statistically you have probably shaken hands with or been in direct contact with one of these people.

love when men say that women "only want money" when it turns out that even in equal-earning homes, women are actually adding caregiver burdens and housework from previous years, whereas men have been expanding leisure time and hobbies. in equal-earning households, men spend an average of 3.5 hours extra in leisure time per week, which is 182 hours per year - a little over a week of paid vacation time that the other partner does not receive. kinda sounds like he wants her money.

love that men have decided women are frail and weak and annoying when we scream in surprise but it turns out it's actually women who are more reliable in an emergency because men need to be convinced to actually take action and respond to the threat. like, actually, for-real: men experience such a strong sense of pride about their pre-supposed abilities that it gets them and their families killed. they are so used to dismissing women that it literally kills them.

love it. told my father this and he said there's lies, damned lies, and statistics. a year ago i tried to get him to evacuate the house during a flash flood. he ignored me and got injured. he has told me, laughing, that he never washes his hands. he has said in the last week that women are just happier when we're cooking or cleaning.

maybe i'm overly nostalgic. but it didn't used to feel so fucking bleak. it used to feel like at least a little shameful to consider women to be sheep. it just feels like the earth is round and we are still having conversations about it being flat - except these conversations are about the most obvious forms of patriarchy. like, we know about this stuff. we've known since well before the 50's.

recently andrew tate tried to justify cheating on his partner as being the "male prerogative." i don't know what the prerogative for the rest of us would be. just sitting at home, watching the slow erosion of our humanity.

getting back into the untamed and i had a thought. / follow for more yllz babygirlism

woag .. otp

mithrun thought of his lover as someone who's "untrustworthy". he looked down at her too, if this is anything to go by

she's a naga for ALL panels she's in with mithrun--you'd think if he wanted her to feel real, she'd atleast have been a doppelganger or something but she's been a chimera for most of the times we've seen her. mithrun's been dungeon lord for 5 years of his life, and his supposed lover has been a chimera for . probably all of it.

also consider: kabru is spinning the narrative about mithrun's time as a dungeon lord into something Laios can comprehend. i think that's critical. kabru says “his life in the dungeon couldn't have been happier” and i think he's being literal. there's little happiness in living in a lie, and personally—mithrun's expression here is pretty telling

is this anything

where’s that one post that said that if the eggs die we need to check on bad not because we’re scared he’s gonna hurt himself but because he’s gonna track down quackity’s address and cave his skull in bc i think we need to take action on that

wouldn't it be SO funny if stede and ed got married in s2?? like wouldn't that be HILARIOUS? (i'm climbing the walls even just thinking about it)

A Ghost fearing his own mortality… I feel like there’s supposed to be a joke here.

(Small extras w/ these two) :(

I feel like The Terror and Black Sails have similar vibes (homoerotic men on boats) but I've never seen The Terror, would you recommend??

i wouldn't say the vibes are especially similar beyond surface level but if you liked black sails you will almost certainly like the terror because it also has devastating monologues that will forever raise your standards for storytelling, filthy sailor guys with every disease, a guilt riddled rage-fuelled captain who can't stop lying and alienating the people around him, strong and well written anticolonial themes, a cunty second in command who steals every scene he's in, schemes that go horrifically wrong with tragic consequences, homoeroticism, and boats.

I think it's only natural to feel anger when somebody isn't "taking your advice" or listening to you about their mental health or what will help them. People want to help people, and the anger comes when you are perceiving somebody as not being receptive but...

It can be a selfish impulse to say that your opinion about their illness is the only thing they need. It isn't about you, even though the advice you give is given by you.

Nobody deserves to suffer, this is true. But, also, nobody deserves to be forced to do things that either won't help or won't be genuine. If somebody isn't taking your advice, there's a reason for it (maybe it's not a good enough reason for you, but this isn't the point). It's okay to be disappointed or angry, but it's not going to help to lash out at them. That is only pouring water onto a grease fire.

it's been pointed out on here before that a lot of terf arguments are actually rooted in sexist idealology that feminists fought and died to unnormalise decades ago and that's its own kettle of fish but one thing i also find very frustrating about this so called 'radical' feminism is that it's so... defeatist? like the moment you categorically label an entire section of society as Bad and Inherently Evil then there's also the implication that nothing can be done about it, and it completely takes all accountability away. saying all men are evil is just another way of saying boys will be boys. he raped her because he's a man. he hit her because he's a man. he didn't listen because he's a man - it's almost offensively oversimplified. there's no point trying to fix this issue in society because men are just Like That, okay! so now what? it's not like they're going anywhere, so you just accept that 50% of the population are evil and will forever treat you terribly and there's nothing to be done about it bc they're biologically predisposed to it? like is that fr the argument here? you're soooo radical for that

everyone has already pointed this out and much more intelligently but the whole plot of lore olympus really comes down to rachel telling the audience whom to hate without putting any work into proving why

like we are no strangers to character assassination demeter legion has been going thru it since day one, but rachel is so staggeringly bad at writing genuine villains that she has to pull random ass acts of evil out of nowhere to justify her pinning certain characters as bad guys. and it’s proof of her writing by the seat of her pants yeah, but when in doubt she just throws characters under the bus so long as it props persephone and hades up

the narrative NEVER shows us zeus or demeter doing evil things, but they’ve run afoul of the main couple, so we are told they are villains. zeus has proven he’s a bad husband, sure, but not a bad king - but rachel needs to escape the corner she had written herself into, so suddenly zeus is a wife abusing monster on par with kronos. arguably the only genuine villain we see do something 1000% wrong is apollo, and rachel still can’t decide if he’s some brilliant mastermind or some idiot being played. in fact, the narrative is kinder to apollo than it is to zeus or kronos, and that’s saying something

like yeah it’s lazy writing to have zeus be the Bad Guy when we have fucking kronos and also apparently ouranos but honesty it just feels so disrespectful. rachel simply cannot figure out how to write a bad guy so she just keeps throwing random characters in the woodchipper and hopes it buys her a week. it’s such a waste of potential, such a demonstration of her failings as a writer, and a total disregard and lack of knowledge of the myths she claims to be basing this on

can you imagine getting diagnosed w like top 3 worst mental disorders ever and then everyone on the internet is like "you are untreatable you are a monster" like oopsies sorry ive gotten better and took the meds i needed and gotten the therapy and i am thriving<3 is my humanity still non-negotiable or

As someone who enjoys religion blogging/discussions, I've come to realize that it's a good practice to be aware of the general signs/symptoms of religious-OCD thinking (aka scrupulosity), because if the conversation is taking on all the hallmarks of scrupulosity, it's actually a definitive sign that we cannot meaningfully and compassionately engage in a conversation about religion in a healthy way. I've actually had this play out a significant number of times online, and when I realized what it was, I also began to realize that the intrusive thoughts/obsessive and compulsive thinking are only ever fed by continuing the discussion with that person.

[[ Important edit to clarify why I am saying it's not healthy — made after I went back to look for more concrete facts about OCD or anxiety (I have GAD, not OCD, but many resources overlap since they're both anxiety disorders):

When Reassurance is Harmful — this explains how/why reassurance-seeking specifically about an OCD fear is a compulsive behavior, and engaging with reassurance-seeking interferes with recovery/management/treatment.

This table from the Anxiety Disorders Center lists key differences between Information Seeking and Reassurance Seeking.

This IOCDF page on Scrupulosity info for Faith Leaders identifies "symptom accommodation" as enabling. Two of the examples of doing this by participating in the OCD behavior are: "Engage in excessive conversation focused on if-then scenarios (e.g., "If I did this, then would X or Y happen? And what if Z was involved? How about W?")" And, "Repeatedly answering questions about ‘correct’ religious or faith practices."

That page also goes on to outline more info about reassurance seeking. "Although providing answers to (often simple!) questions may seem harmless, providing reassurance serves to maintain the anxiety disorder cycle." (This BMC psychiatry article cites a lot of related studies establishing this.)

The IOCDF page on What is OCD and Scrupulosity? ]]

Imo, the responsible thing to do is to recognize that (even if the other person hasn't outright stated it/isn't diagnosed)* the conversation is not about religion, it is about needing mental health support from professionals and experts. Talking to me, the layperson who enjoys chatting theology and my religion — is not only not helping, but is actively harmful. I'm not just talking about the person who I replied to today, either. Like I've said, I've seen this happen dozens of times in various online forums.

*[while I am against diagnosing strangers on the internet, it's important to realize A) lots of people don't know what Scrupulosity is, so it's possible they've never considered this is a mental health concern that could be treated, and that B) for the purposes of my concern, it doesn't matter if they actually have diagnosed OCD. The only thing that matters is that their thought-process causes them genuine distress/fear, and every response given to them seems to only incite new/additional distressing questions/thoughts, or further entrenches the original distress.]

Ultimately, any discussion aside from "you might want to speak to a mental health professional about scrupulosity OCD" seemingly puts me in the position of feeling as if I am being used for their self-harm. I hate that feeling. I do not want to be leverage for fear and pain. I have GAD, I despise the idea that I am making things worse.

No matter how much I love religious discussion, the answer in these cases is always "please reach out to an OCD specialist/mental health professional. I am not qualified to discuss this." And then to stop there. I have never once seen anyone stuck in this compulsive thought spiral be reassured or feel any better by hearing from someone else's approach to theology handled with things like empathy, compassion, logic, or even atheism. It doesn't matter what we say, how we say it, or how we relate to our own religion. The urge to engage in this kind of conversation in order to chat about religion is a sign that we are not equipped to help.

You can't have a conversation here, because intentionally or not, ten times out of ten, you are adding fuel to the fire. Just like people can't simply tell me something that would erase/talk me out of my ADHD/depression/anxiety disorder, you also cannot simply argue/reassure/persuade people out of scrupulosity. We should not try. We have a responsibility to consider that it's outright harmful to do so, and to disengage.

okay wait laughingstock concept Incoming: so im imagining some of the neighbors (maybe Julie & Frank) noticing that Barnaby & Howdy are a lil fruity, yk yk. and Julie's like damn, i guess we have to play matchmaker here.

so naturally they wind up getting the whole neighborhood involved. everybody's a wingman here. Poppy's dropping hints when Howdy drops off groceries, Wally is constantly asking Barnaby to go get him things from the bodega, etc etc. Howdy and Barnaby are facing this sudden change in town-wide behavior with slight concern and bemusement

eventually - lets say Julie, Sally, and Wally - get Barnaby into the bodega and then abruptly leave like "don't have too much fun without us you two *wink wink nudge nudge*". once they're gone (read: very obviously hiding outside & watching through the window) Barnaby & Howdy turn to each other like:

Barnaby: you think we should tell them we're already married?

Howdy: let them have their fun - they'll figure it out eventually