AnarchistArtificer

I have to believe in a future where people look back on this from a world with less hatred in it than it currently has. I want to give the perpetrators of hate as little plausible deniability as possible.

I have to believe that even though looking back on history didn't seem to help us avoid this situation, that there will be people in the future who are wiser and empowered to make better choices for them and their communities.

It's a fantasy, and I honestly don't care if it's unrealistic. It's what I need to believe to keep going. I need to believe there can be something better after this, regardless of whether I'll get to experience it.

I know I'm just one person, but your experiences are important and imo, necessary for women's liberation (and human liberation more generally). I'm not going to say "you should share your experiences" because I get how exhausting it is to be challenged on basic shit all the time and that means commenting can be akin to self harm if overdone. I guess I'm just trying to expand that 1% of non-assholes into a larger percentage.

I say this as a cis woman whose feminism has gotten a hell of a lot more intersectional in recent years, in part due to trans friends. Knowing trans women in particular has helped me to feel more at home and happy in my own gender (femininity and its relationship with womanhood is complicated). Having lived as a guy for a chunk of your life no doubt means that your lived experience (especially with respect to gender) is messy and complex, but that's great, because the world is messy and complex. At least, it would be great, if more people were open to listening to you when you share. I'm sorry that you have to do the cost:benefit analysis before commenting — that part is something I can relate to.

It does help, thank you.

Is outrage all that new? It strikes me as evergreen

I liked this comment. You wrote with the nuance and balance that I strive for. Thanks for sharing

I agree that it's not quite the same, and I'm finding it real interesting to ponder how that happens.

This comic and this comment section have been pretty thought provoking. (Heads up, this is overly abstract speculation from here): For example, here's a mathsy diagram This is a commutative diagram, and I'm not at the level of being able to explain it properly, but part of it is the idea of equivalence, the fact that there's two routes from A to D that are equivalent.

I'm thinking about this sort of analogous to what we're seeing in the comic and these comments. Like, the base experiences we're talking about (being spoken over when you're trying to share your experiences, for example) are fundamentally shared experiences, but the manner of experiencing them is different, because it's coloured by our own positionality (of which gender is a big part of). I think sometimes though, it's like discussions don't work because we get separated — some of us at B, and some at C. Like, it does matter that our experiences are different, but also, there's a sense in which it doesn't, because we need to head to the same place anyway.

I don't know what converging on D would be in this analogy. Solidarity perhaps? Which would, I suppose, involve recognising that the route you're on is different to the route other people are on, and that it's possible to be heading to the same place. I'm not sure, this is quite abstract, but you said the word "meta" and that seemed to catalyse this thought, so here's this comment. You're welcome/my apologies

I'm sorry, but this comic doesn't help.

I don't think it necessarily has to? Like, I agree with pretty much everything in your comment, aside from this part and what it implies. I read this comment as an expression of frustration from the artist, and it's certainly one that I can relate to. I also realise that there's a heckton of men who'll relate too, because of how men who want to carve out space to talk about men's issues can be cut off, even if they're not the same men as the assholes who only want to talk about men's issues when they're speaking over a woman. However, I think that saying "both sides" to this misses the point of the comic

It can be useful to ground statements in our own personal perspectives because of how it limits the scope of what we're saying. A smaller, messier example is that I am autistic and have done both disability activism and autism activism in the past. I am autistic and because of that, I am also disabled, and so many of my experiences as an autistic person can also apply more generally to disabled people. However, generalising a statement can be difficult, especially if on a difficult topic, such as institutional ableism. I was able to speak confidently on how that affected me personally, and to a more limited degree, how it affects other autistic people, because of who I am in community with. However, I don't directly know any deaf people, for example, and thus I am cautious when talking about my experiences as a disabled person, lest I over-generalise. I get a similar sense from the comic's use of "as a woman". Grounding stuff in that way is often an attempt to limit the scope of the discussion to something more manageable when grappling with something hard to articulate.

I also do think it's useful to recognise the difference in experience. As a silly example, I might say "as a woman, I need to breathe air in order to survive". I could also say "as a human, I need to breathe air in order to survive". I could also say "as an animal, I need to breathe air in order to survive", but actually, I'd need to go and double check the facts on that last one. That's sort of my point — sometimes statements are overly specific and should be simplified, like in the "as a [woman/human]" statements. However, limiting the scope (like in the "as a human" statement compared to the "as an animal" one) actually gives space for the possibility that some weird animals don't need to breathe.

Apologies if I have explained this poorly. I don't mean to come off as lecturing or argumentative; I am replying to your comment because I appreciate your points and I am open to discussion.

I wonder if it's a case of trying to make a habit of good practice. I've gotten into the habit of citing stuff when writing online, even if the context wouldn't really demand that (or slapping a [citation needed] onto the end of stuff I know I could cite, but I'm too lazy to do and I want it known that lack of sources mean my assertions are questionable)

If this were a shitpost, I would unironically love this.

Unfortunately, I think it isn't intended that way, so thumbs down from me

Thank you for sharing; I watched it and found it so silly that I went and found an even longer one https://youtu.be/NBH3UvlZo90 It's so silly. I was trying to ponder what sound effect would best match, but there's so many, it'd be impossible to choose.

That's hilarious and I don't think I've seen it before. Thanks for sharing.

Man, I hope that kid is alright. Depending on how old this photo is, that kid may well have died in a pointless war. Fuck

A friend who recently had a kid said that when she and her husband were building up to having children, she became acutely aware of the government discussing "why are people having fewer kids and how do we ensure that we have a sufficient workforce in the future" and she became increasingly exasperated to hear how out of touch politicians spoke about it, when the actual answer was so simple.

Affordable housing is one of the biggest no-brainers. For example, she is one of only a handful of friends my age (millennial) who owns a home. As someone who has been homeless multiple times due to landlord fuckery, I can't imagine choosing to have kids if renting a home. That seems so obvious, but she said that she never heard them connect the dots in this way — the government would sometimes talk about the need for more affordable housing, but never in the context of "hmm, we don't know why people are having fewer kids and how to encourage people to start families". They literally don't understand how living in precarity gets to you and it's depressing